Turnover estimation from isolated daily sales was held arbitrary, and the related penalty failed with the unsupported addition.

Turnover cannot be estimated for an entire year by extrapolating isolated daily sales where the method is found arbitrary and unsupported by a reliable basis. The Madras HC upheld the deletion of the turnover addition because the assessment relied on sales from a single day and ignored normal business fluctuations. The penalty also failed, since it was founded on the same unsustainable estimation and no perversity or illegality was shown in the concurrent factual findings. The revision was therefore rejected, leaving the appellate findings undisturbed in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the turnover addition made on the basis of sales detected on a single day and extrapolated for the whole year was sustainable; (ii) whether the penalty levied on the assessed suppression could be sustained.

Issue (i): Whether the turnover addition made on the basis of sales detected on a single day and extrapolated for the whole year was sustainable.

Analysis: The assessment proceeded by taking the sales recorded on two days, deriving an average daily sale, and projecting that figure for the remaining days of the year. Such an approach ignored normal fluctuations in business activity and treated one day's sale as a reliable measure for the entire year. The authorities below found that this was not a reasonable method for estimating turnover and that the addition was unsupported by a sound basis.

Conclusion: The turnover addition was rightly deleted and the finding was in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalty levied on the assessed suppression could be sustained.

Analysis: The penalty rested on the same estimation exercise that was rejected as unreasonable. Once the basis for the addition itself was found unsustainable, the penalty could not survive independently on the facts found by the appellate authorities. No perversity or illegality was shown in the concurrent factual findings.

Conclusion: The penalty was rightly deleted and the finding was in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The revision failed because the assessment method was found to be an unacceptable basis for yearly turnover estimation, and the concurrent factual findings were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A yearly turnover addition cannot be sustained where it is extrapolated from isolated daily sales without a reasonable and reliable basis, especially when the concurrent factual findings reject the method as arbitrary.

---