https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349325 ITAT Mumbai held that a 123-day delay in filing the appeal was condoned in view of the surrounding circumstances and absence of mala fides, and it admitted additional grounds raising a pure question of law on the applicability of section 40A(3) after rejection of books under section 145(3). On merits, it held that rejection of books does not bar the Assessing Officer from relying on material gathered during assessment or from applying section 40A(3) and section 40A(3A) in a best judgment assessment under section 144, given the overriding effect of section 40A. As the assessee failed to substantiate Rule 6DD relief and the record supported the disallowances, the additions were upheld. en-us Wed, 04 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Oct 2017 11:50:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349325 ITAT Mumbai held that a 123-day delay in filing the appeal was condoned in view of the surrounding circumstances and absence of mala fides, and it admitted additional grounds raising a pure question of law on the applicability of section 40A(3) after rejection of books under section 145(3). On merits, it held that rejection of books does not bar the Assessing Officer from relying on material gathered during assessment or from applying section 40A(3) and section 40A(3A) in a best judgment assessment under section 144, given the overriding effect of section 40A. As the assessee failed to substantiate Rule 6DD relief and the record supported the disallowances, the additions were upheld. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 04 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349325