RAJES KUMAR, J. - (1.) PRESENT revision under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against the order of the Tribunal dated December 19, 2006 relating to the assessment year 2000 -01.
(2.) THE applicant was engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of iron and steel. The applicant claimed to have maintained the books of account in the regular course of business. The assessing authority rejected the books of account on the ground that on three occasions, Trade Tax Officer, Mobile Squad had seized the goods and against the seizure of the goods, penalties have been levied. The assessing authority had also rejected the books of account on the ground that there was a difference in the return version and book version. Gross and net turnover as per books of account were higher than the return version. The applicant explained that due to the mistake of the accountant lesser turnover was disclosed in the monthly returns. The explanation of the applicant was not accepted. The assessing authority by way of best judgment assessment enhanced the turnover and estimated the suppressed sales of iron and steel at Rs. 35 lacs. First appeal filed by the applicant was dismissed. The applicant further filed second appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order has confirmed the rejection of books of account and the estimate of suppressed sales at Rs. 35 lacs. The Tribunal, however, on the other aspects has remanded back the matter to the assessing authority, which is not in dispute in the present revision. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar, learned Counsel for the applicant and Sri Nimai Das, learned Standing Counsel.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the applicant submitted that so far as seizure of the goods and levy of the penalties are concerned, Tribunal has held that the penalties against the seizure of the goods were quashed and no adverse inference against such seizure was drawn. He submitted that the only ground taken for the rejection of books of account is the difference in the return version and book version and on the said ground alone upheld the estimate of suppressed sales at Rs. 35 lacs. He submitted that the estimate of turnover disclosed as per books of account was higher than the turnover disclosed in the returns. It was explained that due to the mistake of the accountant, lesser turnover was disclosed in the return. Since as per books of account higher turnover has been disclosed, it cannot be said to be a case of suppression of turnover. He submitted that no defect was found in the books of account and inasmuch as no case of claiming of wrong exemption has been made out. In this view of the matter books of account and disclosed turnover are liable to be accepted. Learned Standing Counsel relied upon the order of the Tribunal.;