Best judgment assessment upheld where seized documents and inconsistent explanations supported the revenue's factual conclusion.

Best judgment assessment may be sustained where the revenue authority treats seized booklets and slips as sufficient material on the record of the relevant period, even if an earlier proceeding on another assessment period reached a different view on similar material. The booklet's ownership was treated as a pure question of fact, and the authority was entitled to rely on the assessee's inconsistent explanations and the evidence before it for the period in issue. No legal bar prevented drawing a different factual conclusion in the later matter, so the assessment was upheld on the facts found by the revenue authorities.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Board of Revenue was justified in sustaining a best judgment assessment on the basis of the seized booklet and slips, notwithstanding an earlier remand in respect of another assessment period on similar material.

Analysis: The question whether the booklet and slips belonged to the assessee was treated as a pure question of fact. The Board of Revenue had before it the material for the relevant assessment years, including the assessee's inconsistent explanations at different stages, and was entitled to draw its own conclusion on that record. The earlier remand in a different assessment period did not preclude the Board from reaching a different conclusion on the evidence available in the present matter, and no legal bar was shown against adopting the material for best judgment assessment under the relevant provision.

Conclusion: The Board of Revenue was right in law in sustaining the assessment, and the question referred was answered against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The reference was disposed of by upholding the assessment made on the basis of the facts found by the revenue authorities.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the material supporting rejection of accounts and best judgment assessment is assessed as sufficient on the record of the relevant period, an earlier contrary view in another proceeding does not disable the authority from reaching a different factual conclusion in the later matter.

---