JUDGMENT
1. Heard counsel for the parties.
2. In his application made under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the assessee has raised the following questions :
" (a) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in estimating the turnover at Rs. 4,00,000 as against Rs. 1,99,362 shown, whereas as per the law the applicant was not bound to maintain his accounts as the sales were below Rs. 2,50,000 ?
(b) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has rightly estimated the sales at Rs. 4,00,000 on the basis of the inspector's report conducted in the month of September, 1993, which was relevant to the assessment year 1994-95, and not for the year 1992-93 ?
(c) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and after considering the purchases, sales and stock of the applicant, the estimation of turnover by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal at Rs. 4,00,000 is not excessive, without any adverse material on record ?"
3. Before us learned counsel for the assessee has categorically stated that he would press only question No. (b). In view of his statement, we, therefore, proceed to consider whether question No. (b) is a question of law.
4. The petitioner is engaged in the business of handloom clothes. Admittedly, no books of account are maintained by the assessee and, therefore, the assessing authority made a best judgment assessment. It is stated that the assessing authority relied on the inspector's report which was based on the survey conducted in the month of September, 1993. The assessment year herein is 1992-93. The submission of counsel for the assessee is that the report of the inspector relating to the assessment year 1994-95, cannot be read for the assessment year 1992-93 and, therefore, the assessment is based wholly on irrelevant materials. When the past history of the assessee can be pressed into service, we see no reason why on the facts and the circumstances of this case future year which is in close proximity to the relevant year, cannot be seen. This alone is not enough to come to the conclusion that the assessing authority based his conclusion on wholly irrelevant materials.
5. For the reasons, question No. (b) is not a question of law. The application is, therefore, rejected.