You missed the notices and got a best judgment assessment. Is the officer's estimate final?
Nothing was decided about the estimate. The Tribunal set the assessment aside and remitted every issue to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication because the assessee had placed no details before either the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals); that the 8 per cent rate was too high was counsel's submission, not a finding. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes only.
Decided by the ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pune Bench 'B' - Dr. Manish Borad (Accountant Member) and Ms. Astha Chandra (Judicial Member); order authored by Dr. Manish Borad, AM) on 2025-10-27, reported as ITA No. 2056/PUN/2025; AY 2014-15 (no reporter citation is printed on the order). It bears on section 144, section 143(2), section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Assessment & Scrutiny matters.
A best judgment assessment is not a penalty for not turning up — the estimate still has to be an honest one with some basis. Missing the notices is recoverable; the usual route back is the first appeal, with the books produced.
Binding on the AO and CIT(A) within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
The assessee, an individual, carried on the business of a poultry farm under the name M/s. Akash Poultry Farm and filed an e-return on 26 November 2014 declaring income of Rs 27,62,130 for assessment year 2014-15. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and statutory notices under ss.143(2) and 142(1) were validly served. In the absence of any response and without any details being submitted, the Assessing Officer framed a best judgment assessment under s.144, making two additions: disallowing interest expenses of Rs 57,96,647, and estimating net profit at 8 per cent of total turnover after allowing the 7.35 per cent gross profit rate declared by the assessee, which produced an addition of Rs 21,62,501. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals) and failed on both additions.
The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remitted all the issues raised in the appeal to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, directing that in the set aside proceedings the officer afford the assessee a reasonable opportunity to file the necessary details, and directing the assessee in terms to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless required for reasonable cause (paras 5 and 6). Nothing was decided on the merits. The Tribunal did not hold the 8 per cent net profit estimate excessive and did not decide whether the interest expenditure of Rs 57,96,647 was allowable; it recorded those as the assessee's contentions and left them to be adjudicated afresh.
The route is procedural, and the reason for the remand runs against the assessee rather than against the Assessing Officer. Before the Tribunal the assessee claimed that its books of account were duly audited, that the gross profit rate declared was consistent with and if anything higher than that of preceding years, and counsel submitted that the 8 per cent net profit rate adopted by the Assessing Officer was on a very high side and that genuine interest expenditure had been disallowed. The Tribunal recorded all of that as the assessee's case and did not adopt it. Its own stated ground for remitting was the assessee's default: considering that the assessee had failed to place the necessary details before either the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals), and in the given facts and circumstances, it deemed it proper to remit every issue to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication (para 5). The relief is therefore an opportunity to make good a failure to comply, coupled with a caution to the assessee about adjournments, and not a finding that the estimate was arbitrary or unsupported.
Considering the fact that assessee failed to place necessary details before the AO and ld.CIT(A) and under the given facts and circumstances, we deem it proper to remit back all the issues raised in the instant appeal to the file of ld. JAO for denovo adjudication.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppNothing was decided about the estimate. The Tribunal set the assessment aside and remitted every issue to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication because the assessee had placed no details before either the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals); that the 8 per cent rate was too high was counsel's submission, not a finding. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes only. This was decided by the ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pune Bench 'B' - Dr. Manish Borad (Accountant Member) and Ms. Astha Chandra (Judicial Member); order authored by Dr. Manish Borad, AM) and bears on section 144, section 143(2), section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as ITA No. 2056/PUN/2025; AY 2014-15 (no reporter citation is printed on the order). A best judgment assessment is not a penalty for not turning up — the estimate still has to be an honest one with some basis. Missing the notices is recoverable; the usual route back is the first appeal, with the books produced. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Get the audited accounts and the supporting records together before the appeal, not during it.
The assessee, an individual, carried on the business of a poultry farm under the name M/s. Akash Poultry Farm and filed an e-return on 26 November 2014 declaring income of Rs 27,62,130 for assessment year 2014-15. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and statutory notices under ss.143(2) and 142(1) were validly served. In the absence of any response and without any details being submitted, the Assessing Officer framed a best judgment assessment under s.144, making two additions: disallowing interest expenses of Rs 57,96,647, and estimating net profit at 8 per cent of total turnover after allowing the 7.35 per cent gross profit rate declared by the assessee, which produced an addition of Rs 21,62,501. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals) and failed on both additions. The matter was decided on 2025-10-27 by the ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pune Bench 'B' - Dr. Manish Borad (Accountant Member) and Ms. Astha Chandra (Judicial Member); order authored by Dr. Manish Borad, AM). On those facts the ITAT held as follows. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remitted all the issues raised in the appeal to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, directing that in the set aside proceedings the officer afford the assessee a reasonable opportunity to file the necessary details, and directing the assessee in terms to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless required for reasonable cause (paras 5 and 6). Nothing was decided on the merits. The Tribunal did not hold the 8 per cent net profit estimate excessive and did not decide whether the interest expenditure of Rs 57,96,647 was allowable; it recorded those as the assessee's contentions and left them to be adjudicated afresh.
The route is procedural, and the reason for the remand runs against the assessee rather than against the Assessing Officer. Before the Tribunal the assessee claimed that its books of account were duly audited, that the gross profit rate declared was consistent with and if anything higher than that of preceding years, and counsel submitted that the 8 per cent net profit rate adopted by the Assessing Officer was on a very high side and that genuine interest expenditure had been disallowed. The Tribunal recorded all of that as the assessee's case and did not adopt it. Its own stated ground for remitting was the assessee's default: considering that the assessee had failed to place the necessary details before either the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals), and in the given facts and circumstances, it deemed it proper to remit every issue to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication (para 5). The relief is therefore an opportunity to make good a failure to comply, coupled with a caution to the assessee about adjournments, and not a finding that the estimate was arbitrary or unsupported. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "Considering the fact that assessee failed to place necessary details before the AO and ld.CIT(A) and under the given facts and circumstances, we deem it proper to remit back all the issues raised in the instant appeal to the file of ld. JAO for denovo adjudication."
It was decided by the ITAT on 2025-10-27 and is reported as ITA No. 2056/PUN/2025; AY 2014-15 (no reporter citation is printed on the order). Binding on the AO and CIT(A) within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A Tribunal decision binds the assessing officer and the Commissioner (Appeals) within that Tribunal's jurisdiction, and is persuasive before other benches. It is not binding on a High Court, and a contrary co-ordinate bench decision will be argued against you, so check whether the point has been taken the other way before you build a reply around it. On section 144, section 143(2), section 142(1), the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the taxpayer. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remitted all the issues raised in the appeal to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, directing that in the set aside proceedings the officer afford the assessee a reasonable opportunity to file the necessary details, and directing the assessee in terms to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless required for reasonable cause (paras 5 and 6). Nothing was decided on the merits. The Tribunal did not hold the 8 per cent net profit estimate excessive and did not decide whether the interest expenditure of Rs 57,96,647 was allowable; it recorded those as the assessee's contentions and left them to be adjudicated afresh. It arises in Assessment & Scrutiny matters, on section 144, section 143(2), section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pune Bench 'B' - Dr. Manish Borad (Accountant Member) and Ms. Astha Chandra (Judicial Member); order authored by Dr. Manish Borad, AM. Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Attack the estimate's basis specifically — what rate, drawn from what comparable, against what declared margin. Explain the non-compliance honestly; the remand here came with the assessee being given an opportunity, not a finding of good conduct.
Searched for later treatment; none was found. That is not the same as a source affirming it. The order has now been read from the Tribunal's own text: ITAT Pune Bench 'B', ITA No. 2056/PUN/2025, assessment year 2014-15, Dr. Manish Borad (Accountant Member) and Ms. Astha Chandra (Judicial Member), pronounced 27 October 2025. The statement previously carried here, that the order could not be found, is withdrawn - it was missed because searches on the party name do not reach it. No later decision applying, following or affirming it has been traced, and none is to be expected: the order decides no question of law, it remits every issue for de novo adjudication on the ground that the assessee had placed nothing before either authority below, and it allows the appeal for statistical purposes only. The status stays unverified for that reason and not because the order is doubted. No appeal against it is disclosed. The Tribunal's power to restore an issue to the Assessing Officer under s.254 is general and is not in question, but that is the ordinary position and not treatment of this order. That finding was checked against a published source, which is linked on this page, on 2026-08-25. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
The signed order has been read and this entry now comes from it: ITAT Pune Bench 'B', ITA No. 2056/PUN/2025, assessment year 2014-15, Dr. Manish Borad (Accountant Member) and Ms. Astha Chandra (Judicial Member), order authored by Dr. Manish Borad, pronounced 27 October 2025, six numbered paragraphs. That supplies the date, the Members and the appeal number this entry previously lacked, and withdraws the earlier note that the order could not be traced. The order carries no reporter citation. One correction matters to anyone who relied on this entry before. It previously said the Tribunal held the 8 per cent net profit estimation arbitrary and lacking substantiation. It held no such thing. That the 8 per cent rate was on a very high side is recorded at para 5 as the submission of counsel for the assessee, and the Tribunal's own reason for remitting is the opposite of a criticism of the Assessing Officer: the assessee had failed to place the necessary details before either the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals). Read the order for what it is - a remand allowing an appeal for statistical purposes, with a direction to the assessee to remain vigilant and not to seek adjournments - and not as authority that an 8 per cent estimate under s.144 is excessive. The order has now been read from the Tribunal's own text, so this entry is no longer single-source, but the order decides nothing on the merits. It does not consider whether the 8 per cent net profit estimate had a proper basis, does not rule on the interest disallowance of Rs 57,96,647, and does not reproduce the classical formulation that a best judgment estimate must be honest guess work with a nexus to the material. It is authority for a remand granted on the assessee's own default and for nothing else. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remitted all the issues raised in the appeal to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, directing that in the set aside proceedings the officer afford the assessee a reasonable opportunity to file the necessary details, and directing the assessee in terms to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless required for reasonable cause (paras 5 and 6). Nothing was decided on the merits. The Tribunal did not hold the 8 per cent net profit estimate excessive and did not decide whether the interest expenditure of Rs 57,96,647 was allowable; it recorded those as the assessee's contentions and left them to be adjudicated afresh.
TaxSphere, “Vatsalabai Karbhari Deore v ACIT”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/vatsalabai-deore-v-acit/ (validity last checked 2026-08-25)
The judgment itself is a government work and may be quoted freely. The summary, the validity note and the reasoning on this page are this library's own writing: quote them with attribution, and please do not present either as the words of the court — this page keeps the two apart and so should a quotation of it.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
The faceless show-cause notice gave me four days to reply. Is that enough time?
The notice has come from an officer in a place I have nothing to do with. Can I say he has no jurisdiction, who decides that, and have I already lost the point by filing my return and answering him?
Can I go straight to the High Court against an income-tax order instead of filing the statutory appeal?
I filed my return on time and paid the self-assessment tax; the officer then added a disputed item in a best-judgment assessment and charged s.234A interest because I did not comply with a s.142(1) notice. Is that right?
