{"id":62429,"date":"2026-07-21T17:33:19","date_gmt":"2026-07-21T12:03:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/devendra-thakershibhai-thakkar-v-ito-2025-172-taxmann-com-504-121-itr-69-sn-ahd-trib\/"},"modified":"2026-07-21T17:33:19","modified_gmt":"2026-07-21T12:03:19","slug":"devendra-thakershibhai-thakkar-v-ito-2025-172-taxmann-com-504-121-itr-69-sn-ahd-trib","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/devendra-thakershibhai-thakkar-v-ito-2025-172-taxmann-com-504-121-itr-69-sn-ahd-trib\/","title":{"rendered":"Devendra Thakershibhai Thakkar v. ITO (2025) 172 taxmann.com 504 \/ 121 ITR 69 (SN) (Ahd.)(Trib.)."},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"margin: 0in;margin-bottom: .0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height: 150%\"><span lang=\"EN-IN\" style=\"font-family: &#039;Verdana&#039;,sans-serif\">Where, during remand proceedings, the Assessing Officer verified the books of account and categorically reported that no discrepancies existed, the rejection of books under section 145(3) and estimation of profit by the lower authorities became unsustainable. The FIR and forensic audit also supported the assessee&#8217;s contention that he was merely a signatory and had no control over the transactions. Accordingly, the additions were deleted. Further, the delay of 880 days in filing the appeal, attributable to the assessee&#8217;s bona fide reliance on his former employer and the COVID-19 period, was condoned in the interest of substantial justice<b>. (<strong><span style=\"font-family: &#039;Verdana&#039;,sans-serif\">AY. 2013-14) <\/span><\/strong><\/b><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>S. 145: Method of accounting-Rejection of books of account-Estimation of profits-Addition was deleted-Delay in appeal \u2013Delay of 880 days-Delay was condoned. [S. 144, 145(3),253,  Rule 46A] <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-62429","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-geV","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/62429","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=62429"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/62429\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":62430,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/62429\/revisions\/62430"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=62429"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=62429"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=62429"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}