Best judgment assessment based on turnover upheld where no books were produced and no perversity in estimation was shown

Where the assessee failed to produce books of account, the Tribunal was justified in making a best judgment assessment by estimating income at 4 per cent of turnover. The rate of estimation depended on the facts of each case, and the assessment for an earlier year could serve only as a guide, not as a binding rule for later years. In the absence of perversity in the Tribunal's reasoning, no substantial question of law arose and the estimation was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether any substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal's estimation of income at 4 per cent of turnover in the absence of produced books of account.

Analysis: The assessee had failed to produce books of account, making a best judgment assessment necessary. The rate to be applied depended on the facts of each case, and the Tribunal's estimation could not be interfered with merely because a different view was possible. The assessment for an earlier year could serve only as a guide and was not binding for subsequent years. In the absence of perversity in the Tribunal's reasoning, no substantial question of law arose.

Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose. The assessment at 4 per cent of turnover was upheld and the appeal failed.

---