Best judgment assessment estimates cannot be replaced on appeal unless the original discretion is palpably wrong or capricious.

Appellate interference with a best judgment assessment estimate is justified only if the lower authority's discretion is palpably wrong or capricious on the record. The first appellate authority had considered the inspection report, defects in accounts, and extent of suppression before reducing the addition as excessive. The Tribunal was therefore not justified in substituting its own view merely because it thought the inspection material had not been fully weighed. The revision succeeded and the first appellate authority's estimate was restored in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in interfering with the first appellate authority's estimate of addition in a best judgment assessment and restoring the Sales Tax Officer's higher assessment.

Analysis: The first appellate authority had examined the inspection report, the defects in the accounts and the extent of suppression, and on that material reduced the addition as excessive. In a matter of estimation and addition, appellate interference is warranted only when the discretion exercised below is shown to be palpably wrong or capricious. The Tribunal interfered mainly on the view that the inspection material had not been adequately considered, but the record showed that the first appellate authority had in fact taken the relevant materials into account.

Conclusion: The Tribunal was not justified in substituting its own view for that of the first appellate authority. The revision succeeded and the order of the first appellate authority was restored, which is in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Appellate interference with a discretionary estimate in assessment is impermissible unless the earlier authority's exercise of discretion is shown to be capricious or palpably wrong on the materials on record.

---