Best judgment assessment upheld where admitted suppression remained unexplained and cross-examination could not override the admission.

Where the assessee's suppression is admitted and remains unexplained, the authority may sustain a best judgment assessment on the basis of normal and legitimate inferences from that admission. The claimed right of cross-examination does not, by itself, displace the evidentiary weight of an unequivocal admission of suppression, especially where the assessee's compounding fee and own statements furnish sufficient material. The Kerala HC upheld the Tribunal's approach and rejected the challenge to the assessment.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in sustaining the best judgment assessment and consequent additions on the basis of the assessee's admitted suppression, and whether the claimed right of cross-examination could displace such admission.

Analysis: The admitted suppression formed the foundation of the assessment, and the assessee's compounding fee and admissions were treated as sufficient material for drawing normal and legitimate inferences. In that situation, objections based on cross-examination did not carry weight, particularly where the admission remained unexplained. The decisions relied on by the assessee were held inapplicable because they concerned different factual settings and did not involve an unequivocal admission of suppression.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's approach was upheld, and the challenge to the assessment failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where suppression is admitted and remains unexplained, the authority may sustain a best judgment assessment on the basis of legitimate inferences from that admission, and a claimed right of cross-examination does not, by itself, defeat the assessment.

---