JUDGMENT C.S.P. Singh, J.
1. The assessee did business in foodgrains and oilseeds in the assessment years 1959-60 and 1960-61. For the year 1959-60, the net turnover was determined at Rs. 21,00,000 and for the year 1960 61 at Rs. 20,45,000. The assessing authority arrived at this figure after rejecting the account books of the assessee. The main reason for rejection of the account books was a survey dated 25th June, 1962. This survey was held during the assessment year 1962-63 and it was on the basis of the material collected at this survey that the account books for these two years were rejected. The assessee filed appeals against the two assessments, which were partly allowed, Four revisions were filed against the order of the appellate authority, two,by the State Government and two by the assessee. We are concerned with the revisions filed by the State Government in the present case. These revisions were allowed. Although the survey in question was not relevant to the assessment years in question, inasmuch as it had taken place beyond the assessment year, the revisional authority still relied on this survey, as it was of the view that this indicated the conduct of the assessee in the previous years. In this view of the matter, it accepted the revision filed by the State.
2. The Judge (Revisions) has, at the instance of the assessee, referred two identical questions in each of the assessment years 1959-60 and 1960-61 for our opinion, which are as under :
(1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the survey dated 25th June, 1962, can be held relevant for the years 1959-60 and 1960-61 and whether any suppression can be presumed for these two years on that basis ?
(2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the enhancement could be made by the Additional Revising Authority for the years 1959-60 and 1960-61 ?
3. In the statement of the case submitted, the revisional authority has stated that no survey was held in the year in dispute, i. e., 1959-60 or 1960-61 and neither was any survey made in the year immediately following 1961-62. It is also stated that in the survey which was held, nothing was found which was relevant to the two years in question.
4. Counsel for the assessee has contended that there was no material for rejecting the account books of the assessee and that the revisional authority erred in law in relying upon the survey, which was not pertinent to the years in question. On the facts found and stated in the statement of the case, there cannot be any escape from the conclusion that the Sales Tax Officer and the revisional authority erred in relying upon the survey in question. The survey in question was held subsequent to the assessment and nothing was found in that survey which had any remote connection with the assessability of the assessee for the two years in question. This being so, the order of the Judge (Revisions) is clearly vitiated in law as it is based on irrelevant consideration. In Babu Ram Vishnoi v. Commissioner of Sales Tax S.T.R. No. 650 of 1970 decided on 7th September, 1971; since reported in [1972] 29 S.T.C. 392, a Division Bench of this Court, of which one of us was a member, has taken a similar view. For the reasons stated above, we answer the two questions referred in the negative and against the department. The assessee is entitled to its costs, which we assess at Rs. 100 in each case.
5. Let a copy of this judgment be kept on the record of S.T.R. No. 509 of 1971.