1. The present revision has been filed by the assessee against the order of Trade Tax Tribunal, Ghaziabad, dated 9.11.2005 in the second appeal no. 317 of 2002, for A.Y. 1998-99 (Central). By that order, the Tribunal has partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee whereas the rejection of books of account has been confirmed and the disputed tax has been reduced to Rs. 60,000/-.
2. Heard Ms. Puja Talwar, learned counsel for the applicant-assessee and Sri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the revenue.
3. Learned counsel for the assessee would submit that the books of account of the assessee had been properly maintained and that the same had been wrongly rejected on account of practise book being maintained by the relative of the assessee's employee, who was learning to maintain the account books, and his practise books had been seized and formed the basis for the rejection of books of account. Thus, it has been submitted, there was no material to reject the books of account of the assessee.
4. Besides the fact that the above submission was rejected by all the three authorities, learned Standing Counsel submits that the grounds raised by learned counsel for the applicant-assessee are wholly unbelievable. No credible evidence was led by the assessee as may merit acceptance of such a submission. As to the estimation of the turnover, it has been submitted, the substantial relief had already been granted.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, the Tribunal found that during the survey dated 23.9.2000, the books of account of the assessee had been seized. Exhibit-11, that had been maintained by employee Suresh Chandra, could not be fully explained by the assessee. The same contained record of transactions between the assessee and the two other dealers at Delhi and Muzaffarnagar. Reference has also been made by the Tribunal to other discrepancies noted with respect to the same.
6. In view of the above, the explanation furnished by the assessee, as relied by the learned counsel for the assessee, is wholly unbelievable. In any case, the rejection of the books of account, being a pure question of fact, at present, it appears, the finding recorded by the Tribunal as to the rejection of books of account on the basis of appraisal of evidence does not call for interference. Moreover, against the turnover of Rs. 2,50,000/- estimated by the assessing authority, the Tribunal has reduced the same to Rs. 60,000/-. No further interference is required.
7. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.8.2019 Prakhar