Revisional authority may decide merits after condoning delay, and past turnover can support a best judgment estimate.

A revisional authority, after condoning delay in an appeal dismissed as time-barred, may itself decide the merits of acceptance or rejection of accounts and the turnover estimate instead of remanding the matter, particularly where the assessee invited that course. The authority's decision to do so was held proper. In a best judgment assessment, the assessee's past turnover record is valid material for estimating turnover when books are not produced, and an estimate based on such material is not arbitrary. The revised turnover assessment was therefore upheld, and the reference was answered against the assessee.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, after condoning delay in an appeal dismissed as time-barred, the revising authority could itself decide the merits of acceptance or rejection of accounts and the quantum of turnover instead of remanding the matter for decision by the appellate authority. (ii) Whether the revised estimate of turnover was arbitrary.

Issue (i): Whether, after condoning delay in an appeal dismissed as time-barred, the revising authority could itself decide the merits of acceptance or rejection of accounts and the quantum of turnover instead of remanding the matter for decision by the appellate authority.

Analysis: The revisional power was treated as wide and plenary. Where an appellate order dismissing an appeal as time-barred is challenged, the revising authority may either remit the matter for consideration on merits or itself decide the merits once it concludes that the appeal was not time-barred or that the delay could be condoned. Although remand is ordinarily the usual course, the assessee had invited the revising authority to examine the merits, so it could not later object to that course after an adverse result. The referred question was also reframed to fit the actual facts before answering it.

Conclusion: The revising authority was competent to decide the merits itself, and its order doing so was legal and proper.

Issue (ii): Whether the revised estimate of turnover was arbitrary.

Analysis: In a best judgment assessment, the past record of the assessee is a relevant basis for estimation, especially where the assessee does not produce books of account. The revising authority relied on the assessee's earlier turnover figures and reduced the estimate from the original assessment. Since the assessment was founded on material available from the assessee's own past record and was not fixed without evidence, it could not be characterised as arbitrary.

Conclusion: The assessment was not arbitrary.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered against the assessee and the revisional order was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A revisional authority with plenary powers may, after condoning delay in a time-barred appeal, decide the merits itself instead of remanding the matter, and in a best judgment assessment the assessee's past record is valid material for estimating turnover when books of account are not produced.

---