Commissioner of Sales Tax v. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali

90 ITR 271Supreme Court of India1973#380 most cited

What is Commissioner of Sales Tax v. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali authority for?

The Supreme Court established principles for best judgment assessments, stating that some guesswork is inevitable but the assessment must be bona fide, rational, and free from bias or capriciousness. An appellate authority cannot substitute its judgment for that of the Assessing Officer unless the AO's assessment is shown to be biased, irrational, vindictive, or capricious, especially when the assessee fails to provide proper accounts or counter-evidence.

232

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali · best judgment assessment · rejection of books of account · Section 144 Income Tax Act · Section 145(3) Income Tax Act · appellate authority power · substitution of AO's judgment · rational basis assessment · estimation of income · assessee non-compliance · arbitrary or capricious assessment · bona fide estimate

Also reported as

32 STC 77

Sections most often in play

Section 148Section 132(4)Section 132Section 133ASection 139Section 147Section 144Section 145(3)

Issues it is cited on

section 132(3)section 13(1)(c)section 131(1)section 13(1)section 132(4a)dumb documentssection 153a(1)(b)best judgment assessmentloose papersretracted statementrejection of books of accountsection 250(4)

Judgments citing Commissioner of Sales Tax v. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali

Jawahar B. Purohit, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 22Xc, Mumbai

In the result, in the case of M

ITA 7214/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201Section 21Section 40Section 40a

…the A.O. in estimating the net profit at 10%. It is held that the estimation is not arbitrary but based on peculiar facts of the case. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax vs. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali (1993) 90 ITR 271(SC) that if the estimate made by the assessing authority is a bonafide estimate and is based on a rational basis, the fact Jawahar B. Purohit, M/s M.R. Construction that there is no good proof in support of the estimate is immaterial. To sum up, it is held that the accounts of the assessee were rightly discarded and the basis adopted for estimat…

Jawahar B. Purohit, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 22Xc, Mumbai

In the result, in the case of M

ITA 7213/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201Section 21Section 40Section 40a

…the A.O. in estimating the net profit at 10%. It is held that the estimation is not arbitrary but based on peculiar facts of the case. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax vs. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali (1993) 90 ITR 271(SC) that if the estimate made by the assessing authority is a bonafide estimate and is based on a rational basis, the fact Jawahar B. Purohit, M/s M.R. Construction that there is no good proof in support of the estimate is immaterial. To sum up, it is held that the accounts of the assessee were rightly discarded and the basis adopted for estimat…

Jawahar B. Purohit, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 22Xc, Mumbai

In the result, in the case of M

ITA 7212/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201Section 21Section 40Section 40a

…the A.O. in estimating the net profit at 10%. It is held that the estimation is not arbitrary but based on peculiar facts of the case. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax vs. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali (1993) 90 ITR 271(SC) that if the estimate made by the assessing authority is a bonafide estimate and is based on a rational basis, the fact Jawahar B. Purohit, M/s M.R. Construction that there is no good proof in support of the estimate is immaterial. To sum up, it is held that the accounts of the assessee were rightly discarded and the basis adopted for estimat…

Jawahar B. Purohit, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 22Xc, Mumbai

In the result, in the case of M

ITA 7211/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201Section 21Section 40Section 40a

…the A.O. in estimating the net profit at 10%. It is held that the estimation is not arbitrary but based on peculiar facts of the case. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax vs. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali (1993) 90 ITR 271(SC) that if the estimate made by the assessing authority is a bonafide estimate and is based on a rational basis, the fact Jawahar B. Purohit, M/s M.R. Construction that there is no good proof in support of the estimate is immaterial. To sum up, it is held that the accounts of the assessee were rightly discarded and the basis adopted for estimat…

Jawahar B. Purohit, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 22Xc, Mumbai

In the result, in the case of M

ITA 7210/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201Section 21Section 40Section 40a

…the A.O. in estimating the net profit at 10%. It is held that the estimation is not arbitrary but based on peculiar facts of the case. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax vs. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali (1993) 90 ITR 271(SC) that if the estimate made by the assessing authority is a bonafide estimate and is based on a rational basis, the fact Jawahar B. Purohit, M/s M.R. Construction that there is no good proof in support of the estimate is immaterial. To sum up, it is held that the accounts of the assessee were rightly discarded and the basis adopted for estimat…

Jawahar B. Purohit, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 22Xc, Mumbai

In the result, in the case of M

ITA 7209/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201Section 21Section 40Section 40a

…the A.O. in estimating the net profit at 10%. It is held that the estimation is not arbitrary but based on peculiar facts of the case. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax vs. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali (1993) 90 ITR 271(SC) that if the estimate made by the assessing authority is a bonafide estimate and is based on a rational basis, the fact Jawahar B. Purohit, M/s M.R. Construction that there is no good proof in support of the estimate is immaterial. To sum up, it is held that the accounts of the assessee were rightly discarded and the basis adopted for estimat…

Jawahar B. Purohit, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 22Xc, Mumbai

In the result, in the case of M

ITA 7208/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201Section 21Section 40Section 40a

…the A.O. in estimating the net profit at 10%. It is held that the estimation is not arbitrary but based on peculiar facts of the case. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax vs. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali (1993) 90 ITR 271(SC) that if the estimate made by the assessing authority is a bonafide estimate and is based on a rational basis, the fact Jawahar B. Purohit, M/s M.R. Construction that there is no good proof in support of the estimate is immaterial. To sum up, it is held that the accounts of the assessee were rightly discarded and the basis adopted for estimat…

Asst CIT CC-22, Mumbai vs. Jawahar Purohit, Mumbai

In the result, in the case of M

ITA 6848/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201Section 21Section 40Section 40a

…the A.O. in estimating the net profit at 10%. It is held that the estimation is not arbitrary but based on peculiar facts of the case. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax vs. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali (1993) 90 ITR 271(SC) that if the estimate made by the assessing authority is a bonafide estimate and is based on a rational basis, the fact Jawahar B. Purohit, M/s M.R. Construction that there is no good proof in support of the estimate is immaterial. To sum up, it is held that the accounts of the assessee were rightly discarded and the basis adopted for estimat…

Asst CIT CC-22, Mumbai vs. Jawahar Purohit, Mumbai

In the result, in the case of M

ITA 6847/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201Section 21Section 40Section 40a

…the A.O. in estimating the net profit at 10%. It is held that the estimation is not arbitrary but based on peculiar facts of the case. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax vs. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali (1993) 90 ITR 271(SC) that if the estimate made by the assessing authority is a bonafide estimate and is based on a rational basis, the fact Jawahar B. Purohit, M/s M.R. Construction that there is no good proof in support of the estimate is immaterial. To sum up, it is held that the accounts of the assessee were rightly discarded and the basis adopted for estimat…

M.R. Construction, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 22, Mumbai

In the result, in the case of M

ITA 3711/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201Section 21Section 40Section 40a

…the A.O. in estimating the net profit at 10%. It is held that the estimation is not arbitrary but based on peculiar facts of the case. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax vs. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali (1993) 90 ITR 271(SC) that if the estimate made by the assessing authority is a bonafide estimate and is based on a rational basis, the fact Jawahar B. Purohit, M/s M.R. Construction that there is no good proof in support of the estimate is immaterial. To sum up, it is held that the accounts of the assessee were rightly discarded and the basis adopted for estimat…

M.R. Construction, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 22, Mumbai

In the result, in the case of M

ITA 3710/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201Section 21Section 40Section 40a

…the A.O. in estimating the net profit at 10%. It is held that the estimation is not arbitrary but based on peculiar facts of the case. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax vs. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali (1993) 90 ITR 271(SC) that if the estimate made by the assessing authority is a bonafide estimate and is based on a rational basis, the fact Jawahar B. Purohit, M/s M.R. Construction that there is no good proof in support of the estimate is immaterial. To sum up, it is held that the accounts of the assessee were rightly discarded and the basis adopted for estimat…

M.R. Construction, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 22

In the result, in the case of M

ITA 3709/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201Section 21Section 40Section 40a

…the A.O. in estimating the net profit at 10%. It is held that the estimation is not arbitrary but based on peculiar facts of the case. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax vs. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali (1993) 90 ITR 271(SC) that if the estimate made by the assessing authority is a bonafide estimate and is based on a rational basis, the fact Jawahar B. Purohit, M/s M.R. Construction that there is no good proof in support of the estimate is immaterial. To sum up, it is held that the accounts of the assessee were rightly discarded and the basis adopted for estimat…

DCIT Cen Cir 22, Mumbai vs. M.R. Construction, Mumbai

In the result, in the case of M

ITA 3646/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201Section 21Section 40Section 40a

…the A.O. in estimating the net profit at 10%. It is held that the estimation is not arbitrary but based on peculiar facts of the case. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax vs. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali (1993) 90 ITR 271(SC) that if the estimate made by the assessing authority is a bonafide estimate and is based on a rational basis, the fact Jawahar B. Purohit, M/s M.R. Construction that there is no good proof in support of the estimate is immaterial. To sum up, it is held that the accounts of the assessee were rightly discarded and the basis adopted for estimat…

DCIT Cen Cir 22, Mumbai vs. M.R. Construction, Mumbai

In the result, in the case of M

ITA 3645/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201Section 21Section 40Section 40a

…the A.O. in estimating the net profit at 10%. It is held that the estimation is not arbitrary but based on peculiar facts of the case. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax vs. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali (1993) 90 ITR 271(SC) that if the estimate made by the assessing authority is a bonafide estimate and is based on a rational basis, the fact Jawahar B. Purohit, M/s M.R. Construction that there is no good proof in support of the estimate is immaterial. To sum up, it is held that the accounts of the assessee were rightly discarded and the basis adopted for estimat…

ACIT Cen Cir 22, Mumbai vs. M.R. Construction, Mumbai

In the result, in the case of M

ITA 1144/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201Section 21Section 40Section 40a

…the A.O. in estimating the net profit at 10%. It is held that the estimation is not arbitrary but based on peculiar facts of the case. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax vs. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali (1993) 90 ITR 271(SC) that if the estimate made by the assessing authority is a bonafide estimate and is based on a rational basis, the fact Jawahar B. Purohit, M/s M.R. Construction that there is no good proof in support of the estimate is immaterial. To sum up, it is held that the accounts of the assessee were rightly discarded and the basis adopted for estimat…

Fateh Chand Charitable Trust, Muzaffarnagar vs. Addl. CIT, Meerut

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 289/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Sh. K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Kr. Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 139(3)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 254

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A.Y. : 2005-06 FATEH CHAND CHARITABLE TRUST, VS. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-2 115 KM MILE STONE, MUZZAFARNAGAR DELHI DEHRADUN HIGHWAY, MUZAFFARNGAR (PAN:AAATF1445N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. Department by : Sh. Anil Kr. Sharma, Sr. DR O R D E R PER H.S. SIDHU, JM This appeal is filed by the Assessee is directed against the Order dated 20.9.2011 of the Ld. CIT(A), Muzaffarngar relevant to assessment year 2005-06 on the following grounds:- 1. Tha…

ITO WD 1(5), Kalyan vs. Gopal Ramshish Tripathi, Bhiwandi

In the result, the appeal for all three years, are PARTLY

ITA 6559/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 148Section 69C

…ould not furnish current mailing addresses nor produce any party for examination. CO No.61 & 62/Mum/2017 Gopal Ramshish Tripathi I. Estimation of income - Best Judgement assessment - It is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of H M Esufali H Abdulla 90 ITR 271 (Sc) :hat if the estimation made by the Assessing Authority is a bonafide estimate and based on a rationable basis, the fact that there is no good proof in support of that estimate is immaterial. Apex court has further held in the case of M/s. Kanchwala Gems Pvt, Ltd. vs JCIT 288 ITR 10 (Se) that it is well settled that in a best judgment assessme…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Rita Plastic (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 4159/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. S.K.Yadav & Sh.Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

…t order has been passed not u/s 143(3) of the Act but it is a best judgement assessment u/s 144 of I.T.Act. Best judgment assessment has been explained by Hon'ble Apex court in the highly illuminating order in the case of CST vs. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali, 90 ITR 271 (SC). Although this was a decision under sales tax law, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has noted in this decision itself, at page 278 of 90 ITR, that the law relating to best judgment assessment is the same both in the case of Income tax assessment as well as in the case of sales tax assessment. Therefore, order of Hon'ble Apex Court in CST vs. H.M.…

Miss Shivani Jain, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-17, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in these three appeals ( ITA No

ITA 780/KOL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Feb 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.778 To 780/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2004-2005 To 2006-2007) Miss Shivani Jain, Vs. Dcit, Circle-17 Krishna Building, Income Tax Office, Bamboo Room No.618, Villa, 169, Ajc Bose Road, 224, Ajc Bose Road, Kolkata-700014 6Th Floor, Kolkata-700017 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adqpj 1598 R .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ankit Jalan, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : None सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 07/02/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 15/02/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Years 2004-2005, 2005-06 & 2006-07, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xxiv, Kolkata, In Appeal No.1467, 1468 & 1469/Cit(A)-Xxiv/C-17/13-14, All Dated 10.02.2014, Which In Turn Arise Out Of Orders Made By The Ao U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To The ‘Act’), All Dated 21.05.2009. 2. Since These Three Appeals Relate To Same Assessee, Different Assessment Years & Common Issues Involved, Therefore, These Have Been Clubbed & Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. The Assessee`S Appeal In, Ita No.778/Kol/2014 Is Taken As The Lead Case.

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Jalan, ARFor Respondent: None
Section 271(1)(c)

…sed in this appeal nor any supporting evidences were produced by him despite adequate opportunity having been provided. In this connection, reliance may be placed upon the decision of the Hon.ble Supreme Court in the case of H.M. Esufali H. M. Abdulali (1973) 90 ITR 271 wherein the Hon'ble Court has held that the appellate authority cannot substitute its own judgement in place of the judgement of the A.O. unless it is shown that the judgement of the A.O. was biased, irrational, vindictive or capricious. In the instant case the appellant has not able to show that the decision of the A.O. was arbitrary, biased, irr…

Miss Shivani Jain, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-17, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in these three appeals ( ITA No

ITA 779/KOL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Feb 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.778 To 780/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2004-2005 To 2006-2007) Miss Shivani Jain, Vs. Dcit, Circle-17 Krishna Building, Income Tax Office, Bamboo Room No.618, Villa, 169, Ajc Bose Road, 224, Ajc Bose Road, Kolkata-700014 6Th Floor, Kolkata-700017 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adqpj 1598 R .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ankit Jalan, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : None सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 07/02/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 15/02/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Years 2004-2005, 2005-06 & 2006-07, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xxiv, Kolkata, In Appeal No.1467, 1468 & 1469/Cit(A)-Xxiv/C-17/13-14, All Dated 10.02.2014, Which In Turn Arise Out Of Orders Made By The Ao U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To The ‘Act’), All Dated 21.05.2009. 2. Since These Three Appeals Relate To Same Assessee, Different Assessment Years & Common Issues Involved, Therefore, These Have Been Clubbed & Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. The Assessee`S Appeal In, Ita No.778/Kol/2014 Is Taken As The Lead Case.

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Jalan, ARFor Respondent: None
Section 271(1)(c)

…sed in this appeal nor any supporting evidences were produced by him despite adequate opportunity having been provided. In this connection, reliance may be placed upon the decision of the Hon.ble Supreme Court in the case of H.M. Esufali H. M. Abdulali (1973) 90 ITR 271 wherein the Hon'ble Court has held that the appellate authority cannot substitute its own judgement in place of the judgement of the A.O. unless it is shown that the judgement of the A.O. was biased, irrational, vindictive or capricious. In the instant case the appellant has not able to show that the decision of the A.O. was arbitrary, biased, irr…