K L MOHAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.

(2.) THESE revisions relate to the years 1985-86 and 1986-87. Assessments for the years in question were completed by the assessor, authority rejecting returns filed by the assessee and the book version of the assessee and by estimating the total taxable turnover for these years.

(3.) IT is on these facts the assessee has come up in revision to this Court raising omnibus question whether the order passed by the Tribunal is legally sustainable and whether the order of the Tribunal is perverse. IT is well-settled that if an authority affiance the order of the lower authority then no detailed order need be passed and the reasons of the lower authority, which are affirmed, need not be reproduced. In the order of affirmation the reasons given by the lower authority are just the same as if they are given by the higher authority. We have carefully gone through the order of the appellate authority reproduced above. The appellate authority clearly stated that no eye witness whatsoever was produced before the assessing officer by the assessee to prove the claim of commission sales of urid flour sent to the Palghat dealer. When no evidence was adduced before the assessing officer and the appellate authority, we see no error in the order of the appellate authority which was affirmed by the Appellate Tribunal, rejecting the claim of the commission sales as set out by the assessee.