YASHWANT VARMA,J. - (1.) Heard Sri Shubham Agrawal, learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
(2.) The assessee has preferred this revision calling in question a judgment rendered by the Tribunal on 9 February 2007 which has while setting aside the judgment of the First Appellate Authority restored the view taken by the Assessing Authority. The dispute itself arises in the following backdrop.
(3.) Upon completion of assessment proceedings the respondents appear to have come across a bill dated 14 February 1999 numbered Bill No. 114 evidencing a transaction valued at Rs. 60,770/-. Upon discovery of this bill proceedings under Section 21(2) of the 1948 Act were undertaken. The Assessing Authority upon a consideration of the material on record proceeded to hold that the discovery of the bill in question would evidence that at least 113 similar transactions had been undertaken by the assessee in the assessment year in question. He accordingly estimated the escaped turnover to the extent of Rs. 10,00,000/-. The First Appellate Authority [and in the considered view of this Court correctly and justifiably] annulled this addition of turnover and re-assessment holding that there was no justification to estimate turnover at Rs. 10,00,000/- merely on the basis of the discovery of a solitary bill of Rs. 60,770/- The Tribunal however has proceeded to affirm and adopt the line of reasoning which was taken by the Assessing Authority. This Court finds itself unable to sustain this decision of the Tribunal for the following reasons.;