ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA,J. - (1.) The books of account of the assessee have been discarded by the authorities under the Act essentially on the ground that there was excess consumption of electricity in auxiliary works Otherwise, there exists a categorical finding that statement shown in the books of account tallies with the record available and placed before the authorities, and there is no inconsistency.
(2.) Learned counsel for the assessee contends that the view taken by the tribunal is inconsistent, and in teeth of the law laid down in M/S Shyam Rice Mills v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. reported in 1988 U.P.T.C. 375 . Paragraph 13 of the judgement, which is relied upon, is reproduced:- "Coming to the third ground, namely the disparity in consumption of electricity, my attention was invited to two decisions of this Court in Mahavir Prasad Jagdish Prasad v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, 1981 UPTC 337 and Mahashakti Oil Mills v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, 1972 UPTC 361 . The view taken in these decisions is that an excess consumption of electricity may give rise to a suspicion and may call for a deeper scrutiny of the accounts but in the absence of any other material the account books cannot be rejected on suspicion alone. In the instant case, except for the finding that the consumption of electricity was more as compared to the production of rice in the year, no discrepancy was found in production account or in other account books of the assessee. This was also not a good ground for rejecting the assessee's account books."
(3.) With reference to the aforesaid exposition of law, learned counsel submits that Tribunal was wholly unjustified in discarding the books of account only on account of the fact that the consumption of electricity was found to be on a higher side.;