← All Phrases

“arbitrary and capricious”

Natural JusticeArbitrary OrderArbitrary Order51 judgments

The decision most relied on for arbitrary and capricious is Commissioner of Sales Tax v. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali (90 ITR 271), cited in 232 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on arbitrary and capricious

Commissioner of Sales Tax v. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali
90 ITR 271 · 1973 · Supreme Court
232
citing judgments

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.

Brij Bhushan Lal Paraduman Kumar v. CIT
115 ITR 524 · 1978 · Supreme Court
113
citing judgments

The Supreme Court holds that an Assessing Officer, when making a best judgment assessment or estimating income, must act fairly, honestly, and rationally, basing the estimation on available material and avoiding arbitrary or capricious decisions. Adherence to natural justice principles is crucial during assessment proceedings.

Shankar Khandasari Sugar Mills v. CIT
193 ITR 669 · 1992 · High Court
64
citing judgments

Best judgment assessments under Section 144 must be a fair and rational estimation of income by the Assessing Officer, not capricious or arbitrary. Appellate authorities should accept clarificatory evidence to test the fairness of such assessments, even if produced for the first time.

CIT v. Ranicherra Tea Co. Ltd.
207 ITR 979 · 1994 · High Court
45
citing judgments

An Assessing Officer cannot make a capricious assessment or estimate income/profit without assigning reasons and supporting material, even when rejecting the assessee's books of account or making a best judgment assessment. The Assessing Officer must act judiciously and not based on pure guesswork.

CIT v. Surjit Singh Mahesh Kumar
210 ITR 83 · 1994 · High Court
31
citing judgments

Where books of account are rejected or not produced, the Assessing Officer may compute profits by applying a flat rate to the turnover or gross receipts. A best judgment assessment must have a nexus to the material on record and cannot be arbitrary or capricious.

CIT v. Edward Keventer (P.) Ltd.
115 ITR 149 · 1978 · Supreme Court
28
citing judgments

When assessing expenses under Section 40A(2), tax authorities must consider the entire position judiciously from the viewpoint of a prudent businessman, not arbitrarily or capriciously. The revenue must demonstrate tax evasion and cannot disallow expenses if the recipient is taxed at the same or higher rate.

K.V. Lakshmi Savitri Devi v. ACIT
148 TTJ 157 · 2012 · ITAT
16
citing judgments

A loose slip containing entries of payment found at the premises of another person, without the assessee's name, date of payment, or payer's name, is not sufficient to establish an addition, especially when no search was conducted in the assessee's case.

Qayum & Co. v. CIT
1 ITR 375 · 1933 · Reported
12
citing judgments

A best judgment assessment is not arbitrary and must be guided by principles of justice, equity, and good conscience. It cannot be made capriciously or in disregard of the material on record.

Judgments citing arbitrary and capricious

Sudhir Bhalla, Meerut vs. DCIT, Circle- 2, Meerut

ITA 3174/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 3169/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 3170/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 3171/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 3172/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Ita No. 3173/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Ita No. 3174/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Ita No. 3175/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Ita No. 3176/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Vasudev Garg, Vs Dcit, Fca 50, Mukesh Colony, Ballabgarh, Central Circle-1, Faridabad, Haryana-121004 Faridabad, Haryana-121001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aflpg8975Q Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.09.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: The Assessee’S Eight Appeals

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 254(1)

Certiorari. 32. The sweep of power under Article 226 may be wide enough to quash unreasonable orders. If a decision is so arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could have ever arrived at it, the same is liable to be struck down by a writ Court. If the decision ... self evident. The High Court would be empowered to exercise the powers when it finds that the decision impugned is so arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person would have ever arrived at. It has been reiterated that the test is not what the court considers reasonable or unreasonable