(1) Jot Ram Sher Singh v CIT-2 ITR 129 (Allahabad]
Held: It should be borne in mind that an assessment u/s 23(4} of the 1922 Act
( equivalent to section 144 of the 1961 Act) should not be influenced by a desire to
punish the assessee for non-compliance with a notice u/s. 22 or section 23, however,
culpable such non-compliance may be, Any deliberate concealment or misstatement of
I.T.A No. 1901 and C.O. 247/Ahd/2014 A.Y. 2009-10 Page No 17
DCIT vs. Gopal Iron & Steel Co. Ltd.
(2) State of Kerala vs. C.Velukuttv (1966) 60 ITR 239 (Supreme Court)
Held: Though there is an element of guesswork in best judgment assessment, it should
not be a wild one, but should have a reasonable nexus to the available material and the
circumstances of the each case. Though the section provides for a summary method
because of the default of the assessee, it does not enable the assessing authority to
function capriciously without regard to the available material.
(3) CITvs. Laminarain Badridas (1937) 5 ITR 770 (Privy Council)
Held: The Officer making best judgment assessment must not act dishonestly, or
vindictively or capriciously because he must exercise judgment in the matter. He must
make what he honestly believes to be a fair estimate of the proper figure of assessment,
and for the purpose he must be able to take into consideration local knowledge and
repute in regard to the assessee's circumstances and his own knowledge of previous
returns/assessments of the assessee and all other matters which he thinks will assist him
in arriving at a fair and proper estimate; and though there must necessarily be
guesswork in the matter, it must be honest guesswork.