PRAKASH KRISHNA, J. - (1.) RAISING a short controversy, the present revision has been filed under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 by a dealer carrying on the business of manufacturing of glass wares. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1994 -95. The rejection of the account books is not disputed in the present revision.
(2.) SHRI Rakesh Kumar Garg, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that there is no material in the possession of the Department not to accept the disclosed turnover of coal dust. The applicant -dealer disclosed the sale of coal to the tune of Rs. 26,08,007. The assessing authority in its assessment order has found that no attempt was made by the applicant -dealer to conceal turnover of coal. However, in view of the facts as found in the enquiry report dated April 29, 1995, the assessing officer estimated the suppressed turnover of coal dust at Rs. 6,51,993. In second appeal the said order has been confirmed. The only contention, as noted above, by the learned Counsel for the applicant, is that there is no material to enhance the turnover of the coal dust. The learned Standing Counsel on the other hand supports the impugned order.
(3.) CONSIDERED the respective submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. A bare perusal of the three orders of the authorities below would show that nothing adverse with regard to turnover of coal was found by any of them. On the contrary, the assessing authority as noted above, found that there was no attempt on the part of the applicant to conceal the turnover of coal. In the absence of material to show concealment of turnover of coal dust, there was obviously no justification to enhance the turnover of coal dust. So far as the enquiry report dated April 29, 1995 is concerned, the same is not relevant for the present assessment year 1994 -95, as it relates to the subsequent assessment year. Each assessment year is a different unit.;