1. By this order, we shall dispose of this appeal of assessee filed by assessee against order of CIT(A), Bathinda for assessment year 2000- 01. 2. At outset, Ld. counsel for assessee submitted that assessee does not want to press ground No. 1 which is general in nature, ground No. 2 and ground No. 5 relating to charging receipts from its Members as income and charging tax at maximum marginal rate of tax under section 167B of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short Act). Ld. D.R. did not raise any objection. Therefore, these grounds are dismissed as not pressed. 3. Now only issues which are being disputed in appeal is that Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in applying net profit rate of 10 per cent on gross receipts of Rs. 4,45,42,701 and sustaining disallowance of expenses of Rs. 3,00,197 out of expenses claimed at Rs. 10,35,197. facts of case are that assessee filed return of income on 15-10-2001 declaring therein income of Rs. 2,26,470. facts of case are that assessee was Union of Truck Operators of Bathinda Town formed with object of making collective bargaining to divide transportation work equally amongst truck owners and to provide common office and sitting place with facilities like shelter cold water and chairs/tables to Members/Drivers. Union does not own any Trucks of its own. Union entered into agreement with Government agencies like FCI, PUNSUP, N.F.L. etc. for supply of Transport. freight charges are collected and passed down to Truck Operators. All Members through common resolutions contributed funds for Union by way of yearly fixed fees or percentage per trip or any other method approved by Members. In return of income, assessee had shown gross freight receipts of Rs. 4,45,42,701 Union Fee of Rs. 1,80,800 and collection from Truck owners at Rs. 10,20,380. payments to Truck owners were shown at Rs. 4,45,42,701 and after claiming various expenses which included mainly of salary at Rs. 6,30,000 printing and stationery at Rs.70,400 income tax at Rs. 60,487 and others, net profit was shown at Rs. 1,65,983. In return, income was shown at Rs 2,26,470. During course of assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer asked assessee to produce books of account, details of all receipts, bills and vouchers and other details noted on pages 1 and 2 of assessment order. These were not filed. Assessing Officer, therefore observed that in absence of books of account, details, bills and vouchers, provisions of section 145(3) were applicable. Accordingly, Assessing Officer estimated income by applying net profit rate of 10 per cent on freight receipts of Rs. 4,45,42,701 and adding thereto Union fees of Rs. 1,80,800 and collection from Truck Owner at Rs. 10,20,380 and thereby arrived at figure of Rs. 56,55,450. As regards claim for expenses, Assessing Officer allowed same at Rs. 7,35,000 out of total expenses claimed at Rs. 10,35,197. In this manner, Assessing Officer completed assessment on total income of Rs. 49,20,450. 4. Being aggrieved, assessee impugned trading addition and disallowance of expenses in appeal before CIT(A). It was submitted before CIT(A) that assessee Society has been formed with object of making collective bargaining for benefit of its members and for providing certain facilities to Members. purpose was not to make any profit out of its activities. It was submitted that income of Society was exempt on principle of Mutuality. society collected freight from Contractee Government and Semi Government Departments and passed down same to Truck Owners. It was submitted that assessee could not produce books of account because of quarrel among Members and these were taken away by them. But still Assessing Officer was duty bound to make fair and reasonable estimate of income. Ld. CIT(A) rejected claim of assessee that its income was exempt from tax on principle of mutuality. He relied on judgment of Rajasthan High Court in case of Sumerpur Truck Operators Union v. ITO [2003] 259 ITR 749. This is no longer subject matter of dispute before us. He also upheld order of Assessing Officer for estimating income by applying net profit rate of 10 per cent and also upheld disallowance of expenses. relevant findings recorded by CIT(A) are as under: "It is pertinent to note here that appellant did not produce books of account before Assessing Officer. In its written submissions dated 26-5- 2003, it mentioned to file list of members, truckers of society but in reality it gave only list of truck numbers affiliated to union and furnished no names gave only list of truck numbers affiliated to union and furnished no names and addresses of any particular member. extent to which it refused to cooperate with in assessment proceedings is openly visible from fact that not to speak of books of account and vouchers it did not submit even bank account or list of members. No detail or evidence with regard to expenditure as claimed in profit and loss account was furnished. In view of this, I find that Assessing Officer was left with no alternative except to estimate net profit @ 10 per cent particularly when truck operator union are well known for their monopoly and high handedness. Through these means, profit earned by them would definitely for more than but normal business activity would yield. Lest this order should be blamed of showing unnecessary bias against conduct of truck unions. I do hereby draw support from famous case of Dakeshwari Cotton Co. (SC) in which Honble Court held that judicial cognizance can be taken of notoriously known fact. I also find that disallowance worked out by ITO is reasonable and in cool calculated manner. In absence of any detail/vouchers etc. nothing better for appellant could have been done by him. No such detail/vouchers were even offered to be shown at appellant level in written submissions filed by appellant to make amends for shortcoming arising at time of assessment proceedings." Assessee is aggrieved with order of CIT(A). Hence, this appeal before us. 5. Ld. counsel for assessee Sh. Sudhir Sehgal reiterated submissions made before authorities below. He drew our attention to copy of profit and loss account where assessee had credited gross freight receipts of Rs. 4,43,42,701 received from Government and Semi Government Departments and since society did not own any Trucks of its own, these were passed down to Truck Operators. Therefore, same amount was debited in profit and loss account. He submitted that assessee only received fees from Truck Operators for providing certain facilities to its Members for which Union fees of R s . 1,80,800 and collection from Truck Owners at Rs. 10,20,380 were separately credited to profit and loss account. He submitted that society has been formed for purpose of collective bargaining and to regulate work amongst various Truck Operators and to provide common services like sitting place, office with facilities like shelter, cold water, chairs/beds etc. to its Members/Truck Drivers. He submitted that Society has not been formed with profit motive. Relying on decision of ITAT, Amritsar Bench in case of ITO v. Truck Union [IT Appeal No. 399 (Asr.) of 2004 dated 14-1-2005] for assessment year 2001-02, Ld. A.R. submitted that Tribunal has accepted purpose of forming Truck Union are same as mentioned above. He submitted that it is true that assessee could not produce books of account due to fact that these were taken away by some Truck operators. It was duty of Assessing Officer to make fair and reasonable estimate of income based on evidence and material on record. He submitted that in case of Truck Union Rampura Phul, CIT(A) Bathinda vide his order dated 3-10-2001 for assessment year 1998-99, upheld net profit rate of 3 per cent and Department has not filed any appeal against said order (A copy was placed before us). Relying on judgment of Supreme Court in case of Berger Paints India Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2004] 266 ITR 99, Ld. counsel submitted that if Department has accepted decision in one case, it could not challenge same in another case. He, therefore, submitted that net profit rate of 3 per cent should be applied in this case also because assessee could not produce bills and vouchers. 6. Ld. D.R., on other hand, heavily relied on orders of authorities below. He submitted that here was case where assessee has failed to produce books of account, bills and vouchers and receipts were to tune of Rs. 4.45 crores. He, therefore, submitted that income estimated by Assessing Officer was fair and reasonable. 7. We have heard both parties and given our thoughtful consideration to rival contentions gone through evidence and material placed on record and orders of authorities below. It is not in dispute that assessee had not produced books of account, bills and vouchers, copy of bank account etc. Assessing Officer was, therefore, fully justified for invoking provisions of section 145(3) of Act. assessee has not even disputed this issue before section 145(3) of Act. assessee has not even disputed this issue before us. Therefore, we agree with authorities below that provisions of section 145(3) are attracted to this case. 8. Having held so now question is whether addition made by Assessing Officer and sustained by CIT(A) was justified having regards to facts of case, material and evidence placed on record. It is settled law that even if book results are rejected Assessing Officer is duty bound to make fair and reasonable estimate of income based on evidence and material on record. He cannot make addition in arbitrary manner or on basis of personal vendetta income estimated should be fair estimate which no doubt involves certain amount of gross work. Reliance in this regard is placed on judgment of Privy Council in case of CIT Central and United Provineer v. Laxminarain Badridas [1937] where it was held as under: "Under section 23(4) of Income tax Act Officer is to make assessment to best of his judgment against person who is in default as regards supplying information. He must not act dishonestly or vindictively or capriciously because he must exercise judgment in matter. He must make w h t he honestly believes to be fair estimate of proper figure of assessment, and for this purpose he must be able to take into consideration local knowledge and repute. In regard, to assessees circumstances and his own knowledge of previous returns by, and assessments of, assessee and all other matters which he thinks will assist him in arriving at fair and proper estimate; and though there must necessarily be guess-work. In matter, it must be honest guess-work. In that sense too assessment must be, to some extent, arbitrary. section places officer in position of person whose decision as to amount is final and subject to no appeal, but whose decision, if it can be shown to have been arrived at without honest exercise of judgment, may be revised or reviewed by Commissioner under powers conferred upon that official by section 33." 9. Now for purpose of estimating income of assessee, Assessing Officer can refer to past history of case which acts as good guide to Assessing Officer. If past history of case is not available, Assessing Officer can refer to comparative cases engaged in similar trade and estimate income basis of GP/NP shown/estimated in those cases. Assessing Officer can also make independent enquiries and refer to results of such enquiries after confronting same to assessee. In present case, Assessing Officer has neither referred to past history of case nor has made any independent enquiries. He has also not referred to any comparable case where income was estimated by applying net profit rate of 10 per cent. Therefore, it could be said that income estimated by Assessing Officer is without any basis and CIT(A) too has summarily upheld same without referring to any other case. 10. Now, it is fact that assessee is society formed for collective benefit of its Members and provides certain facilities to Members/Drivers. On our directions, Ld. counsel produced copy of balance sheet for assessment year under reference. perusal of same shows, Society does not own any Trucks of its own. total assets owned by Society are furniture and fixtures at Rs. 1,10,000, Advance to employees at Rs. 35,980 and cash & bank balance at Rs. 5,14,806. Freight receivable and T.D.S. at Rs. 97 lakhs represented by freight payable of same amount. capital in form of Members fund is only at Rs. 1,94,803. freight received is passed on to Truck owner. Society collects only small percentage of fees/commission for its upkeep and maintenance. These facts clearly show that Union has not been formed with object of making profit. Assessing Officer has not disputed gross receipts which were from Government Organisations and supported by T.D.S. certificates. Under these circumstances, issue which requires consideration whether it could be said that society has earned amount of income as assessed by Assessing Officer and confirmed by CIT(A). On being asked by Bench, assessee produced copy of CIT(A)s order for immediately succeeding assessment year i.e., 2001-02. perusal of same shows that assessee had shown income of Rs. 1,37,105 from gross receipts of Rs. 1,56,91,428 and had shown union fee at Rs. 1,95,400, collection from Truck owners at Rs. 7,80,100 and interest on refund at Rs. 1,06,455. assessee furnished only part of details. Assessing Officer invoked provisions of section 145(3) and estimated income by applying net profit rate of 10 per cent. assessee filed appeal and same CIT(A), who decided appeal for assessment year under reference also decided appeal for subsequent assessment year. He noted that payments of Rs. 1,10,369 were found to be irregular. He upheld such addition. He also observed that assessee was not able to establish genuineness of payments of Rs. 21,55,746. He, therefore, sustained application of net profit rate of 10 per cent on such payments of Rs. 21,55,746 which works out to Rs. 2,15,574. total addition sustained by CIT(A) works out to Rs. 3,25,943 (i.e., Rs. 2,15,574 + 1,10,369). Since assessee had declared income of Rs. 1,37,105 in return, total income after giving effect to CIT(A)s order works out to Rs. 4,63,048 (i.e., 3,25,943 + 1,37,105) from gross receipts of Rs. 1,56,91,482 which in terms of percentage works out to 3 per cent. total freight receipts for assessment year under reference were at Rs. 4.45 crores i.e., almost three times than receipts of assessment year 2001-02. If we apply same ratio, income for assessment year under reference works out to Rs. 13,89,144 (i.e., 4,63,048 x 3). 11. Ld. counsel has referred to decision dated 3-10-2001 of CIT(A), Bhatinda, in case of Truck Union Rampura Phul case (supra) for assessment year 1998-99 (a copy was placed before us) where assessment was completed under section 144 by applying net profit rate of 4 per cent by Assessing Officer on freight contract receipts of Rs. 2,21,20,827. On appeal, CIT(A) reduced net profit rate of 3 per cent of freight receipts. contention of Ld. AR that Department has not filed any appeal against said order of CIT(A) is not disputed by Revenue. In case of Berger Paints India Ltd. (supra), it has been held if Department has not challenged decision of appellate authority in one case, it is not open to Department to challenge decision in another case. principle of consistency and uniformity in approach is required to be followed. These facts show that in another case, Assessing Officer has estimated income by applying rate of 4 per cent whereas in this case net profit rate of 10 per cent has been applied. In other case also, assessment was completed under section 144. In present case assessment has been made by invoking provisions of section 145(3) which again requires that assessment is to be made in same manner as under section 144. No material has been placed on record or enquiry has been made by Assessing Officer that in this case assessee collected higher rate of commission/fees from its Members/Truck Operators. No other comparable case has also been cited. In fact, Ld. DR was specifically asked to cite even single other case of identical nature where net profit rate of 10 per cent is applied. He could not do so. Under these circumstances, we consider orders of authorities below for applying rate of profit at 10 per cent as highly arbitrary, unreasonable and without any basis. 12. In light of detailed facts and circumstances of case discussed above and legal position mentioned above, we are of considered opinion that orders of authorities below deserve to be set aside. We order accordingly and direct Assessing Officer to compute income by applying net profit rate of 3 per cent of freight receipts, union fee and collection from Truck Operators. assessee would not be entitled to any deduction for expenses as income is directed to be computed by applying net profit rate of 3 per cent. These grounds of appeals are treated as partly allowed. 13. In result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed. *** Bathinda Truck Operator Union v. Income-tax Officer