These three appeals by assessee against consolidated order dt. 1st Feb., 1983 of AAC Range XII, Calcutta relating to asst. yrs. 67-68, 1968- 69 and 1969-70 raise common question of law and facts and, are therefore, disposed by this common order. assessee, formerly Pak National (Bangladesh) came to India on or about 2nd March, 1965 surrendered his Pak Nationality on or about 15th Sept., 1965 and acquired Indian Citizenship. After arrival in India, he made declaration on 19th Feb., 1966 to IT Authorities as to money brought by him from Bangladesh (erstwhile East Pakistan) and started business from 21 June, 1966 out of money brought by him. He furnished returns of income for asst. yrs. 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70 showing income from business at Rs. 5,251, Rs. 14,981 and Rs. 15,291 respectively for those assessment years. Book of accounts were not produced by assessee before ITO since according to him, they were damaged due to flood. ITO, therefore, in absence of books of accounts, estimated income from business at Rs. 8,000, Rs. 16,000 and Rs. 17,500 respectively for those assessment years. Further ITO found that assessee invested about Rs. 33,719 towards cost of construction of godown on plot of land purchased by late father in name of his wife in 1955 at Nabadwip. In assessment of ITO, source of investment could be explained by assessee only to be extent of Rs. 12,719 being sum received on life insurance claim on death of his father in 1967 and balance of Rs. 21,000 remained unexplained. Further assessment order mentioned that said amount of Rs. 21,000 was offered to taxation during period 1965-66 to 1970-71 in equal proportion. There appears some mistake in mentioning asst. yrs. 1965-66 to 1968-69 in assessment orders since amount of Rs. 21,000 has been spread over period of six years, Rs. 3,500 for each year. Thus, in each of three years, Rs. 3,500 have been added to income being unexplained investment towards godown. AAC gave relief of Rs. 1,000 and thereby reduced estimate of income in asst. yr. 1967-68 from Rs. 8,000 to Rs. 7,000. He dismissed appeal in respect of other two years as to estimate of business income and also dismissed appeals for all years as to addition of Rs. 3,500 in each year on account of unexplained investment towards godown. It was contended by ld. counsel for assessee that appeals were not looked into by ld. AAC in proper perspective inasmuch as that no revised returns were filed by assessee for any of years under appeal yet AAC mentioned in order that amount of Rs. 3,500 was voluntarily disclosed by assessee under revised return filed for years. Further according to him, godown was constructed on land by his father long before and he did not make any investment therein. question of explaining source of investment, therefore, did not arise and he never offered Rs. 21,000 to taxation during period of six years in equal proportion. According to ld. counsel, assessee was not present at time of assessment and any admission made by Sri Ramesh Chandra Shah, Accountant on his behalf was not binding upon him since he had not authorised and instructed said Accountant in this respect. Thus, it is argued by ld. counsel that assessment is not based on appreciation of true facts and AAC did not properly consider appeals though real facts were brought to his notice inasmuch as that affidavit in support thereof and copy of assessment Register of Nabadwip Municipality for year 1964-65 were also filed but that too were not looked into. estimate of income for these assessment years is also challenged by counsel for assessee. While opposing appeals, ld. departmental Representative placed reliance upon assessment order and order of AAC. After having carefully considered contentions of parties, we find much force in these appeals for these reasons. How ITO could find out that assessee invested about Rs. 33,719 towards cost of construction of godown between 1965-66 to 1970-71 is unknown. Assessment order mentioned that municipal records shows that godown and PB Office room were already assessed to tax in year 1964-65 and as such they were then in existence. Under such circumstances, it is open to much criticism that assessee offered Rs. 21,000 to taxation during period of six years in equal proportion. Even, if it is taken as concession made by Sri Ramesh Chandra Shah, Accountant on behalf of assessee, it bears no value. Admission by counsel, no doubt cannot be ordinarily resided from but it is settled law that admission merely as admission is not conclusive unless it operated as estoppel. Under circumstances obtaining in this case there could not either be admission of such type or it must be under misapprehension of facts. When municipal record before ITO itself, made it clear that godown was constructed before 1964-65, question for investment on godown could not arise before ITO and at any rate there could not be admission about investment on construction of godown unless there was misapprehension. Unfortunately, AAC also did not look into these circumstances though affidavit was filed by assessee before him and he on statement of wrong facts that revised returns were filed for all years and therein assessee voluntarily disclosed investment towards construction of godown, did not pay heed to appeal. Now we come to second issue. Since assessee did not product account books, return income Rs. 5,251, Rs. 14,981 and Rs. 15,291 for asst. yrs. 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70 respectively has been estimated by ITO at Rs. 8,000 Rs. 16,000 and Rs. 17,500 respectively. AAC interfered in estimate for year 1967-68 and reduced it to Rs. 7,000. In case of non- production of account, ITO has no doubt power to make best judgment assessment. But best judgment assessment cannot be made capriciously or without regards to available material. It must be based on some material. assessee though did not produce account book but did produce P & L A/c and Balance Sheet for each of three assessment years. In these P & L A/c assessee claimed rent of godown to be deducted. ITO do not refer to P & L A/c either for purpose of ascertaining ownership of godown or for purpose of finding out its correctness and extent of business of assessee. He assigned absolutely no reason for making estimate. He did not assign any reason as to why P & L A/c produced by assessee was rejected. AAC too while reducing estimate of income from Rs. 8,000 to Rs. 7,000 did not assign any reason therefor. It is apparent that tax authorities below merely made estimate without help of material. Such estimates cannot be allowed to stand. We, therefore, accept returned income of assessee. We, therefore, direct that addition of Rs. 3,500 in each of years on account of unexplained investment in godown is cancelled. estimate of income is also cancelled and it is directed that instead ITO shall accept return income. In result, all three appeal are allowed. *** ABANI BHUSAN PRAMANIK v. INCOME TAX OFFICER