Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.276

Section 145(3) falls under section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to section 276 (Method of accounting) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 276 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 145(3) is CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (331 ITR 236), cited in 694 of the 3,640 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 145(3)

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.

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.

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. Simit P. Seth
38 Taxmann.com 385 · 2013 · High Court
278
citing judgments
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.

CIT v. Bilahari Investment (P) Ltd.
299 ITR 1 · 2008 · Supreme Court
206
citing judgments

The project completion method and the percentage of completion method are both recognized methods for recognizing income from real estate contracts.

CIT v. British Paints India Ltd.
188 ITR 44 · 1991 · Supreme Court
204
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer has a duty to examine whether an assessee's books of account truly disclose the correct income and is not bound to accept the accounting system regularly employed by the assessee or methods followed in earlier years. Each assessment year is a distinct and self-contained unit for tax purposes.

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 on Section 145(3)

M/S. Dna Media Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer 2(1), Lucknow

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

ITA 216/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Jul 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 M/S Dna Media Pvt. Ltd., 16/3, Vs. The Income Tax Officer- 2(1), Gha, Sarojni Naidu Marg, Lucknow-New Lucknow Lucknow-226001 Pan: Aadcd4488R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Ashish Jaiswal, Adv Revenue By: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.04.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.07.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 25.02.2025, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act For The A.Y. 2017-18 On 19.05.2023. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1 That The Reassessment Proceeding Is Unlawful & Without Jurisdiction As The Approval Has Been Given By Pcit U/S 151(I) Instead Of Pccit U/S 151(Ii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 As Required U/S 151 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & Also Held By The Apex Court In The Case Of Rajeev Bansal. 2. That The Notice Issued U/S 148 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Is Time Barred As Issued Beyond Extended Timeline As Per The Findings Of Apex Court In The Case Of Rajeev Bansal. 3. That The Notice Issued U/S 148 By Jao Is Invalid & Without Jurisdiction As Per The Amended Provision Of Law U/S 151A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Also Making The Reassessment Completed Without Jurisdiction.

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Jaiswal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 250Section 69A

Arihant Roller Flour Mills, Jind, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Jind, Haryana

The appeal of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 942/CHANDI/2026[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Jul 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.942/Chandi/2026 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S Arihant Roller Flour Mills Ito Ward – 1 बनाम/ Vs. Uchana S.O, Baroda, Jind Kothi No. 1234, Urban Estate Haryana – 126115 Jind, Haryana – 127306 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aamfa-5652-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Nikhil Goyal & Sh. Ashok Goyal (Advocates) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Jaishree Sharma (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04-06-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 07-07-2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Assails Invocation Of Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Rohtak (Pr. Cit) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19 Vide Impugned Order Dated 28-03-2026 Proposing Revision Of An Assessment As Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S.144 R.W.S. 260 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act On 16-02-2024 After Making Quantum Addition Of Rs.10.06 Lacs.

For Appellant: Sh. Nikhil Goyal and Sh. Ashok GoyalFor Respondent: Smt. Jaishree Sharma (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 263Section 270A