Best judgment assessment upheld where repeated non-compliance and lack of evidence left the income estimate unchallenged.

Best judgment assessment is valid where the assessing authority makes an honest and fair estimate based on available material, including local knowledge, past returns, and prior assessments, even though some guesswork is unavoidable. Repeated non-compliance with notices and a history of ex parte assessments supported the estimates made for the relevant years. The assessee produced no credible material to prove the alleged losses during those years, and the estimate was consistent with earlier assessments. The assessments were therefore held lawful and not shown to be unfair, unjust, dishonest, vindictive, or capricious.

---

---

Issues: Whether the best judgment assessments made for the relevant assessment years were illegal, unjust, or based on an unfair estimate of income.

Analysis: The assessee had repeatedly failed to comply with notices and had a long history of ex parte assessments. The income estimated by the assessing authority was consistent with earlier assessments, and no credible material was produced to show that the assessee had suffered the alleged losses during the relevant years. In a best judgment assessment, the must make an honest and fair estimate and may rely on local knowledge, the assessee's past returns, and prior assessments, though some guesswork is inevitable. Such assessment may be somewhat arbitrary, but it is not invalid if it is not dishonest, vindictive, or capricious.

Conclusion: The best judgment assessments were held to be lawful and not shown to be unfair or unjust, and the challenge failed.

---