MIRNAL MEHTA,CUTTACK vs. ITO WRD-2(4), , CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.170/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2017-2018) Mrinal Mehta, Vs Ito, Ward-2(4), Cuttack Iswar Dham, Alamchand Bazar, Cuttack Pan No. :Afupm 1868 D (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Mohit Sheth, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09/08/2023 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 28/04/2023, Passed In Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1052428107(1) For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. Ld. Ar Has Filed His Written Submissions, Which Read As Under :- Written Submission Facts Of The Case -- The Appellant Is An Individual Deriving Income From Business. The Appellant Filed His Audited Return Of Income For The Aforesaid Assessment Year. The Appellant'S Return Was Selected For Scrutiny By Cass On Reason For Substantial Cash Deposits In Banks. Notices Were Served On Appellant Regarding The Matter For Verification. In Response To The Notices & Show Cause Notices The Appellant Produced All The Materials Alongwith Books Of Accounts & All The Bank Accounts Statement For Verification. The Same Was Duly Verified By The Assessing Officer & Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) On 31/12/2019. The Ao On Verification Of Bank Accounts Found That The Assessee Has Deposited Rs.58,65,000/- In The Bank Account With Icici Bank Ltd. & Treated As An Unaccounted Cash Sales Of The Assessee & Thus Gross Profit Of The Assessee Was Estimated @ 8% On The Total

cash deposits are also reflected in the bank account of the assessee. No difference in the stock maintained by the assessee has also been pointed out nor has any undisclosed transaction being found. It was the submission that just because the income of the assessee has been estimated, it cannot be held that the assessee has under reported its income

MR. MADAN LAL GUPTA,BHADRAK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK

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

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.379/Ctk/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Madan Lal Gupta Vs Ito, Bhadrak Ward, Bhadrak Near Charampa College, Tishalpur, Rahanja, Charampa, Bhadrak, 756101 Pan No. : Acxpg 7862 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri B.R. Panda, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 23/09/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assesee Against The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre(Nfac),Delhi Dated 18/10/2024 Passed In Appeal No.Cit(A),Cuttack/10541/2019-20 For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. At The Outset, It Is Found That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 181 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit Stating Sufficient Reasons For Condonation Of Delay, Which Are Plausible & Not Found To Be False. Ld.Sr. Dr Also Did Not Raise Any Serious Objection To Condone The Delay. Accordingly, The Delay Of 181 Days In Filing The Appeal By The Assessee Is Condoned & The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Admitted For Hearing.

cash deposited in the books of account of reassessed on 05.12.2016. It was the submission that the bank of the assesee

PURUSHOTTAM DAYAL TULSHYAN,SAMBALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.50/Ctk/2024 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-2014) Purushottam Dayal Tulshyan, Vs Ito, Ward-2(1), Sambalpur Khetrajpur, Balmukund Dora Lane, Sambalpur-768003 Pan No. :Aakpt 1711 B (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/07/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit, Sambalpur Passed U/S.263 Of The Act, Dated 18.12.2023 For The Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessment In This Case Was Completed U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 31.12.2015. Thereafter The Case Was Reopened By Issue Of Notice U/S.148 Of The Act Dated 31.03.2021 & The Reassessment Order Was Passed U/S.147 R.W.S.144B Of The Act On 28.03.2022. Thereafter The Ld. Pr.Cit, Sambalpur Found The Said Order Erroneous As Well As Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue & Revised The Said Order Wherein He Has Enhanced The Income Of The Assessee By Rs.4,02,90,000/- On Account Of Addition U/S.68 Of The Act. Against The Said Order, The Assessee Is In Present Appeal Before Us.

cash deposit of Rs.4,02,90,000/- using the bank accounts of Shri Mukesh Sharma and Shri Paras Sharma, the source of which required to be explained." During the course of reassessment

MAA PAHADWALI RICE MILL,BOUDH, ODISHA vs. ITO, WARD, PHULBANI, PHULBANI

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2017-18 Maa Pahadwali Rice Mill, Maa Pahadwali Rice Mill, Vs. Ito, Ward, Phulbani Ito, Ward, Phulbani Kamalpur, Po: Telibandha, Kamalpur, Po: Telibandha, Dist: Boudh. Pan/Gir No. No.Aaufm 3720 D (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik & Subit Sahu, Advs J.M.Pattnaik & Subit Sahu, Advs Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Sanjay Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 23/9/202 24 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/9/20 024 O R D E R Per Bench

deposits made in the cash credit account standing in State of Bank of India without considering the facts of the case. It was also the submission that the Assessing Officer cannot complete the reassessment

JAY KISHORE CHOUBEY,RAIRANGPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, ASANSOL

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Girish Agrawalassessment Year : 2010-2011 2011 Jay Jay Kishore Kishore Choubey, Choubey, Vs. Acit, Circle Acit, Circle-1, Asansol. Rairangpur Bazar, Rairangpur, Rairangpur Bazar, Rairangpur, Mayurbhanj. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Acmpc 1759 N (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty P.R.Mohanty, Adv Revenue By : Shri Charan Das, Sr. Das, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/11 11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/11 /11/2023 O R D E R Per Bench

cash deposit and interest were Rs.73,69,368/- i.e. exceeding maximum amount which was not chargeable to income tax. The assessee society has not filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2010- 11 which the assessee was under statutory obligation to file In view of the above facts and circumstances, I have sufficient reason to believe that income

GULLIPALLI RAM PRASAD,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, BERHAMPUR

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

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2018-19 Gullipalli Gullipalli Ram Ram Prasad, Prasad, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Income Tax Offi 1/218/34, 1/218/34, Sri Sri Simhadri S Berhampur Residency, Residency, Chandanpur Chandanp Colony, Colony, Flat Flat No.703, No.703, Gopalapatam, Gopalapatam, Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam Pan/Gir No. No.Aucoo 7479 A (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri N.Trinath Rao, Ca N.Trinath Rao, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 08/01/20 2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08/01/20 025 O R D E R

cash deposit in the bank account. In the first appellate proceedings also, the assessee only filed written submission by stating that the assessee is an unemployed person and had earlier savings to carry on some small business. The explanation of the assessee did not find favour by the ld CIT(A) and consequently, the assessment was upheld. 6. Before

SAI SIMRAN INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR,ODISHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

cash deposits are from the earlier withdrawals and therefore the additions on 11,50,000 is liable to be deleted. 5. That, the appellant craves to alter, amend, modify or add any other ground that may be considered necessary in the course of appeal proceeding. 3. In grounds of appeal No. 1 & 2, assessee has challenged the validity of reopening

SAI SIMRAN INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR,ODISHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

cash deposits are from the earlier withdrawals and therefore the additions on 11,50,000 is liable to be deleted. 5. That, the appellant craves to alter, amend, modify or add any other ground that may be considered necessary in the course of appeal proceeding. 3. In grounds of appeal No. 1 & 2, assessee has challenged the validity of reopening

SAI SIMRAN INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1(1), BHUBANESWAR,ODISHA

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

cash deposits are from the earlier withdrawals and therefore the additions on 11,50,000 is liable to be deleted. 5. That, the appellant craves to alter, amend, modify or add any other ground that may be considered necessary in the course of appeal proceeding. 3. In grounds of appeal No. 1 & 2, assessee has challenged the validity of reopening

SAI SIMRAN INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,NFAC,DELHI, NFAC DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

cash deposits are from the earlier withdrawals and therefore the additions on 11,50,000 is liable to be deleted. 5. That, the appellant craves to alter, amend, modify or add any other ground that may be considered necessary in the course of appeal proceeding. 3. In grounds of appeal No. 1 & 2, assessee has challenged the validity of reopening

OMM DHANA LAXMI JEWELLERS,ANGUL vs. PCIT, INCOME TAX

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Omm Dhanalaxmi Vs. Pr. Cit, Bhubaneswar-1. Jewellers, Bazar Chowk, Main Road, Angul-759122 Pan/Gir No.Aagfd 8791 D (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Adv Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 23/9/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/9/2024 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld Pr.Cit, Bhubaneswar-1 U/S.263 Of The Act Dated 30.3.2024 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1) That The Ld. Pr Cit Bhubaneswar Has Erred In Law By Utilizing Section 263 For Directing The Assessing Officer To Do Necessary Verification As Per The Order Of Hon'Ble Itat Cuttack Bench Vide Order Dated 01-10-2019 Which Was Already Barred By Limitation. Provisions Of 263 Does Not Allow To Proceed For A Matter Which Was Already Barred By Limitation. Hence, The Order Passed Us 263 Needs To Be Quashed In To.

deposited cash into their respective bank accounts before advancing loan to the assessee. In the interest of justice, we restore the issue only for the limited purpose and direct the AO to verify and examine the cash availability in the hands of the respective lenders from legitimate business sources. The assessee is directed to cooperate with the AO for above

MIDWAY MOTORS \PRIVATE LIMITED,CUTTACK vs. PR.CIT-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.148/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Midway Motors Private Limited, Vs Pr.Cit, Bhubaneswar-1 Plot No.554, Nuapada Chaak, Madhupatna, Cuttack-753010 Pan No. :Aajcm 8153 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr.Cit(Osd) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/06/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit, Bhubaneswar-1, Dated 11.01.2022, Passed In Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2021-22/1038622483(1), For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That There Is Delay Of 411 Days In Filing The Present Appeal, Which Was Due To Death Of The Accountant Of The Assessee, Who Was Looking After The Tax Matters Of The Assessee. The Affidavit Filed By The Assessee Has Not Been Found To Be False & The Reasons Given Are Found To Be Reasonable. Consequently, The Delay Of 411 Days In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned & Appeal Of The Assessee Is Disposed Off On Merits.

cash deposits & evidently no examination has been done during scrutiny on the above issues.” If this is the note that is available on the file, it was very much available to the AO to initiate 6 reassessment

MR. TAPAN KUMAR BHUYAN,SALEPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialita Nos.120 To 123/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014 12 To 2014-15 Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Vs. Income Ta Income Tax Officer, Ward- Chandradeipur, Chandradeipur, Salepur, Salepur, 1(1), Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Adopb 5206 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Ranjan Dash Dash, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/0 /08/2023 O R D E R These Are These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Of The The Ld Ld Cit(A) Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi All Dated10.01.2023 10.01.2023 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/104858788161) 23/104858788161) & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 C/S/250/2022-23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011 23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011- 12 To 2014-15, Respectively. 15, Respectively.

reassessed the income of the petitioner as per the assessment order dated 19.12.2018. A. Assessee has failed to declare the head “income from other sources”, on its opening balance of with society as on 31.3.2021, and interest if any earned. B. Assessee has failed to explain the source of fresh deposit of Rs 8,80,@0.00, and its interest earned

MR. TAPAN KUMAR BHUYAN,SALEPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialita Nos.120 To 123/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014 12 To 2014-15 Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Vs. Income Ta Income Tax Officer, Ward- Chandradeipur, Chandradeipur, Salepur, Salepur, 1(1), Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Adopb 5206 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Ranjan Dash Dash, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/0 /08/2023 O R D E R These Are These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Of The The Ld Ld Cit(A) Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi All Dated10.01.2023 10.01.2023 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/104858788161) 23/104858788161) & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 C/S/250/2022-23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011 23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011- 12 To 2014-15, Respectively. 15, Respectively.

reassessed the income of the petitioner as per the assessment order dated 19.12.2018. A. Assessee has failed to declare the head “income from other sources”, on its opening balance of with society as on 31.3.2021, and interest if any earned. B. Assessee has failed to explain the source of fresh deposit of Rs 8,80,@0.00, and its interest earned

MR. TAPAN KUMAR BHUYAN,SALEPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialita Nos.120 To 123/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014 12 To 2014-15 Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Vs. Income Ta Income Tax Officer, Ward- Chandradeipur, Chandradeipur, Salepur, Salepur, 1(1), Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Adopb 5206 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Ranjan Dash Dash, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/0 /08/2023 O R D E R These Are These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Of The The Ld Ld Cit(A) Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi All Dated10.01.2023 10.01.2023 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/104858788161) 23/104858788161) & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 C/S/250/2022-23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011 23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011- 12 To 2014-15, Respectively. 15, Respectively.

reassessed the income of the petitioner as per the assessment order dated 19.12.2018. A. Assessee has failed to declare the head “income from other sources”, on its opening balance of with society as on 31.3.2021, and interest if any earned. B. Assessee has failed to explain the source of fresh deposit of Rs 8,80,@0.00, and its interest earned

MR. TAPAN KUMAR BHUYAN,SALEPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialita Nos.120 To 123/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014 12 To 2014-15 Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Vs. Income Ta Income Tax Officer, Ward- Chandradeipur, Chandradeipur, Salepur, Salepur, 1(1), Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Adopb 5206 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Ranjan Dash Dash, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/0 /08/2023 O R D E R These Are These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Of The The Ld Ld Cit(A) Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi All Dated10.01.2023 10.01.2023 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/104858788161) 23/104858788161) & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 C/S/250/2022-23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011 23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011- 12 To 2014-15, Respectively. 15, Respectively.

reassessed the income of the petitioner as per the assessment order dated 19.12.2018. A. Assessee has failed to declare the head “income from other sources”, on its opening balance of with society as on 31.3.2021, and interest if any earned. B. Assessee has failed to explain the source of fresh deposit of Rs 8,80,@0.00, and its interest earned

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR vs. SMT. INDRANI PATNAIK, ROURKELA

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

cash or mercantile, such method has to\nbe followed keeping in view the Accounting Standard notified by the\nCentral Government from time to time. Sub clause 3 provides a\nsituation, that is, if the Assessing Officer is unable to deduce the true\nincome. On the basis of method of accountancy followed by an\nAssessee than he can reject the book

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR vs. SMT. INDRANI PATNAIK, ROURKELA

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

cash or mercantile, such method has to\nbe followed keeping in view the Accounting Standard notified by the\nCentral Government from time to time. Sub clause 3 provides a\nsituation, that is, if the Assessing Officer is unable to deduce the true\nincome. On the basis of method of accountancy followed by an\nAssessee than he can reject the book