Unreliable accounts and stock variations justified best judgment turnover estimate in jewellery assessments.

Stock variations found during surprise inspections justified rejection of the assessee's accounts because the records were held unreliable and not regularly kept. Once the accounts were rejected, best judgment assessment based on running stock was treated as a recognised method in the jewellery trade, and the Tribunal's year-wise reduction of the estimate to two times the running stock was not interfered with. A departmental circular on marginal stock differences in gold jewellery cases was held not to displace the assessment, as it was not relied on before the statutory authorities, related to penal action rather than regular assessment, and was not in force during the relevant years.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether rejection of the assessee's accounts was justified on the basis of stock variations detected during surprise inspections. (ii) Whether the estimate of taxable turnover at two times the running stock fixed by the Appellate Tribunal required interference. (iii) Whether the departmental circular regarding marginal stock differences in gold jewellery cases displaced the assessment made for the relevant years.

Issue (i): Whether rejection of the assessee's accounts was justified on the basis of stock variations detected during surprise inspections.

Analysis: Surprise inspections during each relevant year disclosed stock variations in gold ornaments or old gold. The variations, though sometimes small, showed that the accounts were not correctly and regularly kept. The finding that the accounts were unreliable was supported by the inspection results and was accepted by the appellate authorities.

Conclusion: The rejection of accounts was justified.

Issue (ii): Whether the estimate of taxable turnover at two times the running stock fixed by the Appellate Tribunal required interference.

Analysis: Once the accounts were rejected, best judgment assessment followed. In jewellery business, estimation by reference to running stock was a recognised method. The Appellate Tribunal assessed the facts for each year and reduced the estimate from three or four times the running stock to two times the running stock. That determination was treated as a factual assessment made on proper appreciation of the material.

Conclusion: The estimate fixed by the Appellate Tribunal did not call for interference.

Issue (iii): Whether the departmental circular regarding marginal stock differences in gold jewellery cases displaced the assessment made for the relevant years.

Analysis: The circular was not relied on before the statutory authorities, was concerned with penal action and not regular assessment, and was not in force during the relevant assessment years. The Court also declined to examine the legality or broader effect of the circular because the point had not been raised earlier.

Conclusion: The circular did not the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal's common order was sustained and no interference was called for in the revisions.

Ratio Decidendi: Where accounts are found unreliable due to stock variations, rejection of accounts and estimation by best judgment will ordinarily stand if the appellate fact-finding authority applies the material year-wise and fixes a reasonable turnover estimate.

---