OM PRAKASH, J. - (1.) This is a revision for the assessment year 1980-81 against the Tribunal's order dated 28th September, 1987. The brief facts are that for the assessment year 1980-81, assessment was made on the assessee, carrying on the business of brick kiln, on 28th June, 1982, on the taxable turnover of Rs. 1,61,700. Thereafter a notice dated 29th August, 1985, under section 21 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, was issued to the assessee stating that an information had been received from the District Supply Officer, Muzaffarnagar, in the following items : " S/sri Some Dutt Bhatta Jagaheri, N. R. 12341 24. 4 M. tons". From the above information, the assessing officer drew an inference that the assessee had purchased coal weighing 14. 4 M. tons, which was not recorded in the books. Therefore, the assessment was reopened and in the reassessment dated 20th September, 1985, the assessing officer held that the assessee would have produced 1,50,000 bricks more from the aforesaid unrecorded coal weighing 24. 4 M. tons. This is how in the reassessment, additional tax to the tune of Rs. 2,460 was imposed. The Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) on appeal set aside the order passed under section 21 on the ground that the assessee carried on business at Gujarheri and not at Jagaheri and, therefore, the information passed on by the District Supply Officer, Muzaffarnagar, could not relate to the assessee and no reason to believe could be had therefrom that the assessee had purchased 24. 4 M. tons of coal, which was not recorded by him in the books and that was used for more production. On appeal to the Tribunal by the Revenue, the order of the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) was set aside and the order of the assessing officer was restored. The reason given by the Tribunal was that the place Jagaheri was wrongly written, because the information was not sent by the District Supply Officer, Muzaffarnagar, himself. The Tribunal stated that the assessee carried on business at Gujarheri and from the record of Int Utpadan Sangh relating to the year 1980-81, it transpired that the assessee, who carried on business at Gujarheri, had purchased 24. 4 M. tons of coal. The question for consideration is whether the information received as early as 27th August, 1980, could be supplemented by the evidence given before the Tribunal for the first time in the year 1987. The evidence relating to Int Utpadan Sangh was not available at any stage anterior to the hearing, done by the Tribunal. The question is whether on the basis of the information received on 27th August, 1980, the department could have reason to believe within the meaning of section 21 that some turnover had escaped assessment. Without supplementing the information by any other material, the reasonable conclusion which can be reached at is that no reason to believe could be had on the basis of the information, received from the District Supply Officer, Muzaffarnagar, that the assessee had purchased 24. 4 M. tons of coal and that had been used for additional production. The Tribunal committed a legal error in relying on the additional evidence which was produced before it for the first time after a considerable period from the date of information. In the result, the revision succeeds and is allowed, the order of the Tribunal is set aside and that of the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) is restored. The Tribunal is directed under section 11 (8) to modify its order accordingly. No order as to costs. Revision petition allowed. .;