Official inspection reports can justify best judgment assessment when unrebutted by cogent material and technical objections fail.

An official inspection report prepared by a public officer in the discharge of statutory duties may be relied on for assessment purposes, because it carries a presumption of regularity unless cogent and convincing material shows it is unreliable. The report here could therefore sustain rejection of the assessee's accounts and a best judgment assessment; objections based only on the assessee's absence or lack of signature were insufficient. A separate challenge seeking cross-examination of the Inspecting Officer also failed, as no enforceable right to such cross-examination was recognised in the circumstances. The assessment based on the inspection report was consequently restored in favour of the Revenue.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the shop inspection report prepared by the Intelligence Officer could be relied on to reject the assessee's accounts and sustain the best judgment assessment; (ii) whether the assessee was entitled to insist on cross-examination of the Inspecting Officer.

Issue (i): whether the shop inspection report prepared by the Intelligence Officer could be relied on to reject the assessee's accounts and sustain the best judgment assessment.

Analysis: The inspection report was a public record prepared by a public officer in the discharge of official duties. Such official acts carry a presumption of regularity and the report could be acted upon for assessment purposes unless displaced by cogent and convincing material. The earlier penalty proceedings based on the same inspection, the revisional affirmation, and the judicial approval already recorded against the assessee's challenge reinforced its reliability. The Tribunal was, therefore, not justified in discarding the report on the ground that it was not signed by the assessee or that the inspection was not made in his presence.

Conclusion: The inspection report was validly relied upon, and the rejection of accounts and best judgment assessment were justified.

Issue (ii): whether the assessee was entitled to insist on cross-examination of the Inspecting Officer.

Analysis: The plea for cross-examination did not survive in view of the binding Full Bench ruling that the assessee had no such enforceable right in the circumstances of the case. The objection was, therefore, unavailable as a ground to invalidate the inspection report or the assessment based on it.

Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to cross-examine the Inspecting Officer.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal's order was unsustainable, and the assessment founded on the inspection report was restored in favour of the Revenue.

Ratio Decidendi: An official inspection report prepared by a public officer in the discharge of statutory duties may be relied upon for tax assessment unless it is shown by cogent material to be unreliable, and it cannot be discarded on merely technical objections such as absence of the assessee's signature or presence.

---