P C ITTYMAW SON Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following questions are raised for our consideration : " (1) Whether the Appellate Tribunal erred in law in disturbing the finding on addition made by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner ? (2) Whether there is material on record to make an addition of Rs. 2,66,840 to the turnover disclosed by the accounts ?"

(2.) THE petitioner is a dealer in oil and grocery. For the year 1968-69 the petitioner returned a gross and taxable turnover of Rs. 21,57,358. 07.

(3.) THE question that arises for our consideration is whether the Tribunal had sufficient material to draw an inference that the suppression had exceeded six months. As courts have stated, the best judgment assessment should be based on an honest and rational estimate which has a reasonable nexus to the available materials and circumstances of each case (P. P. Varghese v. State of Kerala [[1971] 27 S. T. C. 459], M. Appukutty v. Sales Tax Officer, Kozhikode [[1966] 17 S. T. C. 380] and Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh v. H. M. Esufali H. M. Abdulali [[1973] 32 S. T. C. 77 (S. C.)] ). THE materials available to the Tribunal should have warranted an inference that the suppression detected on the two inspections indicated a pattern of continuous suppression which could well have extended over six months. THE question is whether the Tribunal had materials to draw an inference as to a pattern of suppression of such duration. In the instant case, the suppression detected on the first occasion was negligible. THE suppression on the second occasion was to the value of approximately Rs. 26,684. THEse two suppressions were detected in the course of three months. THEre was no further inspection to indicate suppression during any other period. THE Tribunal, however, presumes that "if there had been another inspection in the course of the year after 27th September, 1968, perhaps variation of this kind would have been noticed". This is a mere guess which cannot be said to be founded on materials. Although this court would not enquire into the sufficiency of materials or substitute its judgment in the place of the judgment of the Tribunal in regard to questions of fact, nevertheless, if the conclusions drawn by the Tribunal are so irrational in the sense that no reasonable man would have come to such a conclusion either because of a total lack of evidence or because of irrelevant considerations, this court would interfere with such finding. In the present case, the material available to the Tribunal were confined to a mere span of three months, which, as the Appellate Assistant Commissioner found, covered six months. THE Tribunal had no materials whatsoever to extend the same pattern to cover beyond six months. In our opinion, the Tribunal was not justified in interfering with the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.