YASHWANT VARMA,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned standing counsel.
(2.) This revision emanates from a decision of the Tribunal dated 6 February 2007 which has in essence reversed the decision taken by the first appellate authority in favour of the assessee.
(3.) The sole issue of controversy inter parties was with respect to an undisclosed turnover of Rs. 2 lakhs in the concerned assessment year. The assessing authority initiated penalty proceedings under Section 13-A (4) of the U.P. Trade Tax 1948 on the basis of seizure of goods and in view thereof proceeded to reject the stock transfer of Rs. 2 lakhs as claimed. The first appellate authority struck down this action of the assessing authority noting that he had clearly failed to undertake an enquiry into each individual transaction as was required in law. In the considered view of this Court, the first appellate authority was clearly correct in this respect. This decision of the first appellate authority has been interfered by the Tribunal on the appeal of the Department. As this Court reads the order of the Tribunal it is more than evident that no reasons have been assigned by it while reversing the judgment of the first appellate authority in deleting the addition of Rs. 2 lakhs especially since the assessing authority had failed to undertake an examination of individual transactions. The decision so arrived at by the first appellate authority clearly did not merit interference by the Tribunal.;