Reliable evidence is essential for undervaluation assessments; unproved market data and irregular additional evidence cannot sustain tax estimates.

Best judgment assessments based on alleged undervaluation require reliable, properly proved foundational material; unverified market-price data and an enquiry report without authenticated records or a dependable method of collection cannot support rejection of the returns or estimation under section 19B. The Tribunal also cannot uphold the assessments where additional evidence is received without recording reasons, identifying the scope of admission, or complying with the prescribed procedural safeguards for recording deposition. On the facts noted, the assessments were unsustainable, the Tribunal's affirmance was legally flawed, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the best judgment assessments and the assessments under section 19B could be sustained on the basis of the material collected from the Statistics Department and the enquiry report relied on by the assessing authority. (ii) Whether the Appellate Tribunal could sustain the assessments despite the absence of reliable foundational material and despite irregularities in the reception and recording of additional evidence.

Issue (i): Whether the best judgment assessments and the assessments under section 19B could be sustained on the basis of the material collected from the Statistics Department and the enquiry report relied on by the assessing authority.

Analysis: The assessments rested on alleged market-price data said to have been obtained from the District Statistical Office, but the original records or authenticated copies were not produced. The material was challenged as unreliable, and the evidence of the official examined before the Tribunal did not satisfactorily establish the source, method, or accuracy of the price collection. Since the market-day particulars of the commodity were crucial, and the departmental data was not shown to be a dependable reflection of the prevailing market price, the factual foundation for rejecting the returns and invoking section 19B was not legally established. The authorities also failed to show, as a matter of fact, that the dealers had actually collected more than what was recorded in their accounts or bills.

Conclusion: The assessments under section 17(3) and section 19B were not sustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the Appellate Tribunal could sustain the assessments despite the absence of reliable foundational material and despite irregularities in the reception and recording of additional evidence.

Analysis: The Tribunal relied upon additional evidence without the safeguards required by the Tribunal Regulations. Reasons for admitting the additional evidence were not recorded, the points to which it was confined were not specified, and the deposition was not shown to have been recorded under the Tribunal's personal direction and superintendence as required. In the absence of compliance with the prescribed procedure, no reliance could be placed on that deposition. The Tribunal also proceeded on assumptions not supported by the record and failed to address the real question whether the data used by the department was truthful and representative. Its affirmation of the assessments was therefore legally unsound.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's order sustaining the assessments was liable to be set aside.

Final Conclusion: The tax revisions succeeded, the Tribunal's common order was set aside, and the matters were sent back for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: An assessment based on alleged undervaluation cannot be sustained unless the Revenue establishes by reliable and properly proved material that the declared price was understated and that the foundational data used for estimation is trustworthy and lawfully brought on record.

---