ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA,J. - (1.) Assessee is a registered works contractor and for the assessment year 2002-2003, had been assessed to tax by the authorities under the U.P. Trade Tax Act. The assessment proceedings were concluded. Assessee claimed benefit for purchase of bricks valued at Rs. 26,73,000/- but the assessing authority allowed benefit of purchases only to the extent of Rs. 23 lacs. To that extent, the assessee felt aggrieved and preferred an appeal, which was allowed and relief in respect of the remaining amount was also granted. It appears that the authorities of the State came in possession of material to suspect the aforesaid transactions and, therefore, proceedings for reassessment, after 4 years, were sought to be initiated. The authority, who gave permission to initiate assessment proceedings, vide order dated 9.1.2009, provided that the assessing authority may verify the books of account of M/s. Bhawani Brick Field, Daurala, who had denied having sold these bricks to the revisionist, which apparently had formed the basis for initiating reassessment proceedings. The authority called for the records of M/s. Bhawani Brick Field, Daurala, but such records were not produced. In such circumstances, assessing authority proceeded further with reassessment under Section 21 of the Act, and found that the purchase of the bricks, to the extent of Rs. 20,25,000/- was not genuine and to that extent, the revisionist's claim has been dis-believed. Such order has been affirmed in appeal by the Tribunal, which has given rise of filing of the present revision by the revisionist.
(2.) Sri Shubham Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist, contends that there was no basis for the State authorities to proceed with reassessment exercise, inasmuch as it was only based on suspicion or surmises. Learned counsel further submits that burden of proof in reassessment proceedings was upon the department, which has not been discharged. Learned counsel further contends that the stand of the seller M/s. Bhawani Brick Field, Daurala, had itself not been accepted by the same assessing authority, therefore, the stand of the seller, having not been accepted by the department itself, could not have formed a valid basis to initiate reassessment proceedings.
(3.) Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submits that the authorities were justified in proceeding to initiate reassessment proceedings inasmuch as the transaction of purchase of bricks was found to be factually incorrect, inasmuch the alleged seller has denied having sold such bricks and, therefore, no interference, in the matter is called far.;