Rejection of account books requires a specific defect; decline in turnover alone cannot justify best judgment assessment.

Account books cannot be rejected merely because turnover has declined when the books are otherwise regular and no specific defect, suppression, or discrepancy is established. On that principle, a best judgment assessment is not justified solely on the basis of reduced turnover. The revising authority must identify a concrete infirmity in the accounts before discarding the book results; absent such defect, the assessee's book version stands. The question was therefore answered against rejection of the accounts and in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revising authority could reject the assessee's account books solely on the ground of decline in turnover when no defect was found in the books.

Analysis: A decline in turnover by itself does not justify rejection of the book version when the account books are otherwise found to be regular and no specific defect, suppression, or discrepancy is established. On that principle, a best judgment assessment cannot be sustained merely because turnover has fallen.

Conclusion: The question was answered in the negative. The rejection of the account books on the sole ground of decline in turnover was not justified, and the answer was in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Account books cannot be rejected and best judgment assessment cannot be made merely because of decline in turnover unless some defect in the accounts is shown.

---