- (1.) The present revision has been filed under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 against the order dated December 19, 2006 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Lucknow, in Appeal No. 19 of 2005 pertaining to assessment year 2002-03. The brief facts of the case are that the revisionist is a proprietor firm and during the assessment year under consideration, it was dealing in manufacturing and trading of rice and rice bran. A survey was conducted in the business premises of the assessee on March 15, 2003. Neither any accountant nor the proprietor was available on the spot during the survey. The aged father of the proprietor was present who stated that the proprietor has gone outside. The books of account produced later but were rejected. So, the assessing officer made the addition on the estimate basis by rejecting the books of account.
(2.) With this background, Sri M.M. Dewan, learned counsel for the revisionist, states that at the time of survey, no books of account were found. The stock of wheat, rice and rice bran was noted down by ignoring the stock lying in a separate godown. At the time of survey, neither the proprietor of the firm nor his muneem (accountant) was present in the business premises. The father of the proprietor, who was aged about 75 year old, was present in the business premises but he had no knowledge about the accounts of the firm. In these circumstances, the books of account were not produced for which there was genuine reason and the account books cannot be rejected on this ground. The books of account were produced later on but the assessing officer has rejected it. He has drawn the attention to the stock found by the survey officer as well as mentioned in the books of account. He submits that the difference in stocks is due to the reason that some stock was lying in a separate godown. The survey team has taken less weight of loose bags. Thus, there was no difference at all. He also mentioned that the survey team had not got these stocks physically weighed at the time of survey and the assistant officer has wrongly estimated the weight of 30 quintals in 30 loose bags which were not full and were unpacked. The survey team counted a number of bags without taking the weight of each bag.
(3.) He continued to argue by mentioning that day-to-day manufacturing account has been maintained which contains date wise purchase, consumption and stock of paddy as well as date-wise production, sale and stock of different varieties of rice. A part of manufactured rice has to be given to the State Government as levy which is duly recorded in a separate levy rice register. This register is checked and signed by the officers of marketing department from time to time. The levy stock register was checked and signed by senior marketing inspector on March 16, 2003 when stock of rice had been recorded.;