Profit estimation as a discretionary factual finding upheld where the Tribunal's 3% determination was not arbitrary or absurd.

Profit estimation at 3% was treated as a factual, discretionary determination depending on the record in each case. The Tribunal's assessment was upheld because it was based on appreciation of the material available and was not shown to be arbitrary or absurd. Reliance on an earlier decision did not, by itself, render the conclusion legally infirm, and no substantial question of law was found to justify interference.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding estimation of profit at 3% and whether interference was warranted with that discretionary determination.

Analysis: The rate of profit estimation is a matter of discretion depending on the facts of each case. The Tribunal's determination at 3% was based on appreciation of the material on record and was not shown to be arbitrary or absurd. Mere reliance on an earlier decision did not make the conclusion legally infirm, and no substantial question of law arose for interference.

Conclusion: The discretionary estimation of profit at 3% was upheld and no interference was called for.

---