JUDGMENT Om Prakash, J.
1. This revision is directed by the assessee against the Tribunal's order dated 16th November, 1988, for the assessment year 1982-83.
2. The assessee is a dealer in watches. The assessing officer rejected the book version of the assessee and estimated the sales of watches imported by the assessee at Rs. 7,00,000. The assessee appealed to the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), who affirmed the rejection of the books. He was also of the view that sales of watches imported by the assessee were assessed by the assessing officer at a very low amount, i.e., Rs. 7,00,000 and he, therefore, enhanced the sales of watches purchased from outside to Rs. 13,00,000. The Tribunal affirmed the order of the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), on appeal.
3. Before me, Sri Bharatji, learned counsel for the assessee, has not disputed the rejection of the books. The only submission made by him was that four forms "C", inter alia, which have been high-lighted by the authorities below in their orders, were also made the basis for the year 1983-84 and an assessment having been made for 1983-84 on 19th March, 1988, on the basis of four forms "C", the authorities below were not right in making assessment for the year 1982-83 on 16th November, 1983, on the basis of those very forms. However, from the perusal of the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) and Tribunal's orders pertaining to the assessment year 1982-83, it is amply clear that the authorities below have clearly stated that four forms "C" related to the assessment year 1982-83. This being so, assessment for the year 1982-83 can very well be based on the four forms "C" and no plea can be taken by the assessee that since already assessment has been made on the basis of those forms in the assessment year 1983-84, they cannot be made basis for the assessment again for the assessment year 1982-83. Moreover, factually also this contention is not correct. A perusal of the assessment order relating to the assessment year 1983-84 clearly shows that in that year the assessment was made considering circumstantial evidence emerging from the state of affairs of the four forms "C". It cannot be said that another assessment was made in the year 1983-84 on the basis of four forms "C", but the fact is that four forms "C" were merely read as an evidence in the assessment relating to the assessment year 1983-84.
4. The next question relates to quantum. A preliminary objection was raised by Sri Bharatji that there was no appeal regarding the turnover and, therefore, the jurisdiction for making enhancement was not vested in the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial). This is also factually incorrect, inasmuch as the Tribunal clearly observed towards the end of the paragraph 3 of its order that turnover fixed in best judgment assessment was subject-matter in first appeal. Turnover being the subject-matter of first appeal, the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), was fully empowered to make enhancement if warranted by the facts.
5. The last question is whether the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), was right in enhancing the sales of watches purchased from outside to Rs. 13,00,000. The Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), has discussed the position of four forms "C" at length and came to the conclusion that the purchases made thereunder aggregate to Rs. 3,43,953. He, therefore, observed that the average of each said form comes to about Rs. 86,000. He was of the view that there was suppression of purchase in each form and, he, therefore, took the average of Rs. 80,000 of purchases made outside the books under each form and this is how he estimated the purchases having been made outside the books under all the 13 forms "C" at Rs. 11,18,000. Adding the profit of 20 per cent he worked out the sales of such watches at Rs. 13,00,000. However, it appears from the Assistant Commissioner's (Judicial), order that the factual position of the remaining 9 forms was not seen. Since the Special Investigation Branch did not say that the purchases made under the remaining 9 forms were verifiable, the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), concluded that under those forms also average suppression of purchases was to the tune of Rs. 80,000 each. The position would have been otherwise, if each form were seen and if from the investigation of each form the conclusion was reached that there was suppression to the extent of Rs. 80,000. There being no conclusive evidence that under the remaining forms also there was suppression of purchases to the extent of Rs. 80,000. I am of the considered view that the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), made an error in estimating the sales of such watches at Rs. 13,00,000. Considering the totality of the circumstances, sales of watches purchased from outside can be reasonably estimated at Rs. 10,00,000.
6. In the result, the revision is partly allowed, the assessing officer is directed to work out the tax taking the sales of watches purchased from outside at Rs. 10,00,000 instead of Rs. 13,00,000. as determined by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) and the Tribunal. No order as to costs.