Best judgment additions fail when books are not materially discredited and estimate lacks a rational basis.

Best judgment additions under income-tax law cannot stand where the accounts are not shown to be unreliable by material defects. Minor isolated mistakes in one assessment year did not justify rejection of the accounts for the remaining years, and an estimated addition based on inadequate reasons and an arbitrary method was held unsustainable. The principle applied is that an estimated assessment must rest on a rational basis and discernible defects in the books; absent that foundation, the addition fails in law and the position is in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the additions made by the Income-tax Officer on a best judgment basis were justified on the facts found by the Tribunal.

Analysis: The accounts were not shown to be unreliable for the relevant assessment years, save for two minor mistakes noticed in one year. Those isolated mistakes did not justify rejection of the accounts for the remaining years. The additions were made without adequate reasons and by adopting a method of estimating escaped income that was arbitrary and highly capricious.

Conclusion: The additions were not justified in law and the answer was in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A best judgment addition cannot be sustained where the accounts are not discredited by material defects and the estimated addition is made arbitrarily without a rational basis.

---