1. Heard Sri Shubham Agrawal, learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. The assessee has preferred this revision calling in question a judgment rendered by the Tribunal on 9 February 2007 which has while setting aside the judgment of the First Appellate Authority restored the view taken by the Assessing Authority. The dispute itself arises in the following backdrop.

3. Upon completion of assessment proceedings the respondents appear to have come across a bill dated 14 February 1999 numbered Bill No. 114 evidencing a transaction valued at Rs. 60,770/-. Upon discovery of this bill proceedings under Section 21(2) of the 1948 Act were undertaken. The Assessing Authority upon a consideration of the material on record proceeded to hold that the discovery of the bill in question would evidence that at least 113 similar transactions had been undertaken by the assessee in the assessment year in question. He accordingly estimated the escaped turnover to the extent of Rs. 10,00,000/-. The First Appellate Authority [and in the considered view of this Court correctly and justifiably] annulled this addition of turnover and re-assessment holding that there was no justification to estimate turnover at Rs. 10,00,000/- merely on the basis of the discovery of a solitary bill of Rs. 60,770/- The Tribunal however has proceeded to affirm and adopt the line of reasoning which was taken by the Assessing Authority. This Court finds itself unable to sustain this decision of the Tribunal for the following reasons.

4. It is not disputed that the solitary bill was numbered 114 and dated 14 February 1999. On this basis the Assessing Authority as well as the Tribunal have incorrectly proceeded to assume that 113 additional transactions were presumably undertaken by the assessee. They have also further and for reasons which cannot possibly be countenanced or accepted proceeded to hold that all these 113 transactions would have been valued at Rs. 60,770/-. The Court is constrained to observe that this line of reasoning is totally arbitrary and cannot possibly ever appeal to logic let alone acceptance in judicial proceedings. Both the Assessing Authority as well as the Tribunal have proceeded in the matter without being educated by the principles which must necessarily govern a best judgment assessment. While it is true that in the course of estimation of turnover a certain degree of guess work must necessarily be recognized as vesting and inhering in the hands of the Assessing Authority, the same cannot possibly be construed as conferring a power to estimate turnover in a wholly whimsical manner as has been done in the facts of the present case. The estimation of turnover of Rs. 10,00,000/- is based solely on surmises and conjectures. The mere fact that the bill in question bore the number 114, cannot automatically lead one to conclude or hold that it was preceded by 113 prior transactions and that too of identical value. Such a process of determination and assessment in the case of a taxing statute cannot be acco

rded approval by this Court. 5. For all the aforesaid reasons, this revision shall stand allowed. The order of the Tribunal as well as the Assessing Authority dated 9 February 2007 and 24 December 2004 respectively, shall stand set aside and the decision of the First Appellate Authority dated 25 August 2006 shall stand restored.