Compounding order finality supports rejection of books, best judgment assessment, and penalty on admitted suppressed purchases.

The revision lay only on a question of law, and the assessee's admission of suppressed purchases, coupled with payment of tax and compounding fee, justified reliance by the assessing authority. Once the compounding order had become final and was not challenged in proper proceedings, it could not be treated as non est in collateral revision; at most it was voidable. The finding of suppression and the resulting rejection of the books of account were factual findings, and the best judgment assessment and penalty were sustained on that basis. No interference was warranted in revision.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in sustaining rejection of the books of account and the best judgment assessment, including the penalty, on the basis of the assessee's admission regarding suppressed purchases and compounding of the offence.

Analysis: The revision under section 23(1) lay only on a question of law. The record showed that the assessee had admitted the unaccounted purchases, sought compounding, and paid the tax and compounding fee. Once the compounding order had become final and was not open to collateral challenge in revision, the assessing authority was entitled to rely on that admission and the connected material while issuing the proposition notice and making the assessment. The finding of suppression and the consequent rejection of the books of account were factual findings. The challenge that the compounding order was non est was rejected, as at the highest it was only voidable and had not been set aside in appropriate proceedings.

Conclusion: The rejection of the books of account, the best judgment assessment, and the penalty were upheld, and no interference was called for in revision.

---