Reserved HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 3 of 2018 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present revision has been filed against the order dated 07.10.2017 passed by Commissioner Tax Tribunal, Muzaffar Nagar in Second Appeal No. 642 of 2016 for Assessment Year 2012-13. The revision was admitted by this Court vide order dated 09.01.2018 on the following questions of law: "(A) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Commercial Tax Tribunal was legally justified in restoring the assessment order dated 26.07.2013 in deciding the cross appeal filed by the applicant and the revenue without adhering to the mandatory provisions contained in Sub Rules of Rule 63 of the U.P. VAT Rules 2008 as laid down by this Hon'ble Court in the cases of Money Honey Electornics Vs. Commissioner, Commercial Tax 2012 UPTC 1145 and Executive Engineer Electrical Store Vs. C.C.T. 2014 UPTC 1238? (B) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Commercial Tax Tribunal was legally justified in restoring the best judgment assessment order passed by the assessing authority on 26.07.2013 by which the evaded turnover of purchase and sales determined at Rs.1,14,50,000/- and Rs.1,25,00,000/- and creating on Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Lokesh Mittal, Murari Mohan Rai Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : C.S.C. M/S Ramnath Sanjay Kumar Thru Its Prop. Ram Nath .....Revisionist(s) The Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow .....Opposite Party(s) additional tax liability of Rs.9,67,500/- without assigning any reason and basis for arriving at such an excessive and arbitrary turnover of purchase and sales?" 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that on 12.09.2012, a team of Special Investigation Branch, Commercial Tax, Muzzafar Nagar made a survey at the business premises of the revisionist wherein a difference in stocks of various items was alleged to have been found. Thereafter while framing the assessment order, the assessing authority passed an assessment order dated 26.07.2013 rejecting the books of account and enhanced the taxable turnover, against which the first appeal was filed which was partly allowed and the taxable turnover was reduced by order dated 22.09.2016. The cross appeals were filed by both the revisionist and the revenue. By the impugned order, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee but allowed the appeal of the revenue, hence the present revision. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that there was no justified reason for the Tribunal to allow the second appeal of the revenue and restore the assessment order. 4. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel supports the impugned order. He submits that the first appellate authority has recorded a finding of fact against the revisionist but still partly allowed the appeal without any cogent material and therefore, the Tribunal by the impugned order has rightly restored the assessment order. 5. After hearing the parties, the Court has perused the record. 6. It is not in dispute that the survey was conducted by SIB on 12.09.2012 at the business premises of the revisionist. It is also not in dispute that vast and various discrepancies in stocks were found, on the basis of which a best judgment assessment was made after rejecting the books of account of the revisionist. The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 22.09.2016 partly allowed the appeal. On perusal of the order passed by First Appellate Authority, it shows that a finding of fact has been recorded against the assessee but still the same was partly allowed, which reads as under: "उपरोक्त िववेचन से स्पष्ट है िक सवेर्क्षण के समय मोके पर िविभन्न वस्तुओ के स्टाक में जो STRE No. 3 of 2018 2 अन्तर पाया गया है, वह वास्तिवक है बैंक है तथा मौके पर अिधक पाया गया माल अपीलाथीर् की िनयिमत लेखो के बाहर अपविचत खरीद से सम्बिन्धत रहा है, िजसके सम्बन्ध में अपीलाथीर् द्वारा मैन्युपुलेट कर उसे लेखो में दजर् िदखाने का प्रयास िकया गया है। इसी प्रकार स्टाक रिजस्टर में दजर् माल मौके पर कोई स्टाक न पाये जाने के कारण ऐसे माल की सवेर्क्षण ितिथ के पूवर् ही लेखो के बाहर अपवंिचत िबक्री कर िदया जाना एवं सवेर्क्षण के बाद उसे लेखो में दजर् कर मैन्यूपुलेट िकया जाना स्पष्ट होता है। अतः उपरोक्त समस्त तथ्यों एवं पिरिस्थितयो को देखते हुए अपीलाथीर् के लेखे िवश्वसनीय नहीं रह जाते है तथा उनमें मैन्यूपुलेशन होनाः प्रमािणत होने के कारण िवद्वान कर िनधार्रण अिधकारी द्वारा संगत वषर् हेतु अपीलाथीर् की लेखा पुस्तको एवं घोिषत आंकड़ों को अस्वीकार कर न्याय एवं िववेक से िकये गये कर िनधार्रण का समथर्न िकया जाता है।" 7. Against the order of the First Appellate Authority, a second appeal was filed by the revenue as well as by the assessee. The record shows that various discrepancies have been pointed out which have not been reversed by the First Appellate Authority, therefore, the Tribunal being last Court of fact recorded a finding of fact which reads as under: "प्रथम अपीलीय अिधकारी द्वारा सवेर्क्षण के समय मौके पर लेखों की तुलना में अिधक पाये गये िविभन्न वस्तुओं का स्टाक व उसका अनुमािनत मूल्य िनम्न प्रकार िनधार्िरत िकया गया है:- क्र०सं० वस्तु का नाम सवेर्क्षण के समय अिधक पाया गया स्टाॅक अनुमािनत मूल्य 1- गेहूं 456.84 कु ० 6,00,000/- 2- सरसों 293.50 कु ० 10,65,000/- 3- मेथी 15.50 कु ० 36,000/- 4- बारदाना (पुराना) 182 कु ० 1,00,000/- 5- तारामीरा 343.55 कु ० 12,55,000/- योगः- 30,56,000/- उपरोक्त िववरण के अनुसार िविभन्न वस्तुओं का कु ल रू0 30,56,000/- का स्टाक अिधक पाया गया है, िजसकी अपवंिचत खरीद िबक्री की गयी है। इसके अितिरक्त 383 कु ० चावल अनुमािनत मूल्य रू० 8,00,000/- की अपवंिचत िबक्री िकया जाना पाया गया है। प्रथम अपीलीय अिधकारी द्वारा गेंहूँ, चावल, सरसों, तारामीरा की अपवंिचत खरीद रू0 72,00,000/- व अपवंिचत िबकी रू० 80,00,000/- एंव मेथी व बारदाना की अपवंिचत खरीद रू0 2,25,000/- पंच 3,00,000/- िनधार्िरत की गयी है। कर िनधार्रण अिधकारी द्वारा STRE No. 3 of 2018 3 िनधार्िरत अपवंिचत खरीद िबक्री में कमी िकये जाने का कोई भी समुिचत आधार आदेश में अंिकत नहीं िकया गया है। अतः उपरोक्त तथ्यों के प्रकाश में अपीलकतार् व्यापारी द्वारा प्रस्तुत अपील बलहीन होने के कारण अस्वीकार िकये जाने तथा िवभागीय अपील स्वीकार िकये जाने तथा प्रथम अपीलीय आदेश अपास्त करते हुए कर िनधार्रण आदेश समथर्न िकये जाने योग्य है।" 8. The finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal has not been assailed specifically in the revision. The Tribunal records that there was huge discrepancy found and therefore once such discrepancy has been found at the time of survey, the rejection of books of account as well as enhancement is justified. 9. In view of above, no interference is called out. The present revision is dismissed. Question of law is answered accordingly. September 23, 2026 Abhishek Gupta STRE No. 3 of 2018 4 (Piyush Agrawal,J.) Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad