ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA,J. - (1.) The assessing authority found that the assessee has sold machinery parts supported with Form-C of value of Rs. 70,254/- as well as sales not recorded were assessed at Rs. 1 lac. The books of account were discarded on the ground that assessee has maintained only one set of books both for central and state sale. The assessee preferred first appeal, which was allowed. Tribunal in second appeal filed by the revisionist has modified the order and fixed total sale at Rs. 1 lac. Out of this 1 lac, Rs. 70,254/- is admitted sale and increase of Rs. 30,000/- is allowed on the ground that books of account were not properly maintained. Aggrieved by such determination, the assessee is before this Court in the present revision.
(2.) Sri Piyush Agarwal, learned counsel for the revisionist submits that there was no basis for Tribunal to increase the turnover to Rs. 1 lac and it ought to have been limited to Rs. 70,254. In respect of such contention, learned counsel has placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in Anoop Kumar and Sons, Bareilly v. Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow, 2006 NTN (31) 439. With reference to para 7 of the judgment, learned counsel submits that there was no material relating to suppression of intrastate sales, and therefore, the Tribunal would not be justified in enhancing the turnover.
(3.) Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that since the books of account have been discarded for valid reason, the Tribunal was justified in marginally enhancing the turnover as the records were not property maintained.;