TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, on rejection of accounts for part of an accounting year, the Tribunal was justified in holding that no best judgment assessment could be made for the period after the visit and seizure by the Sales Tax Officer.
Analysis: The reference proceeded on the accepted principle that unreliable accounts for part of an accounting year may justify rejection of the books for the whole year. On the facts, the seizure of the kachchi rojmel on 20 February 1958 was treated as a dividing point. The Tribunal proceeded on the basis that, absent contrary material, the assessees would have maintained regular and proper accounts after that date, and that the estimate could fairly be confined to the period before the seizure. No material was shown to displace that inference or to establish continuing suppression after the seizure.
Conclusion: The Tribunal was justified in law in holding that no best judgment assessment could be made for the period subsequent to 20 February 1958, and the question was rightly answered in the affirmative in favour of the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the record supports a reasonable inference that suppression ceased after a detected irregularity and there is no contrary material, a best judgment estimate may be confined to the period for which unreliability is proved.
TaxTMI 
