HAJI DAWOOD USMAN OF YEOTMAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant has his head officer at Yeotmal and branch offices at eight other places in the State. For the period to which the assessment relates, namely, 1st June, 1947, to 14th November, 1947, he was able to produce his books of accounts for all shops, except those at Akola and Yeotmal. The books pertaining to these shops were burnt some time before he was asked to produce them. Accordingly the Assistant Commissioner proceeded to make his assessment in respect of these shops to the best of his judgment under Section 11(4) of the Act. The applicant questions the validity of that assessment.

(2.) PRACTICALLY the only reasons urged are in terms of arithmetic. To understand them, I have prepared the following statement :- In respect of In respect of all shops. shops at Akola and Malkapur only Gross turnover returned by 39.90 lacs. 10.29 lacs. assessee. Gross turnover determined by Assessing Officer ... 41.43 " 10.93 " ----- ------ Total enhancement : ... 1.53 " .64 " Percentage enhancement ... 3.8 6.2 (Figures have been given above correct to the nearest thousand rupees).

(3.) THE appropriateness of these principles in respect of assessments made under Section 11(4) of our Sales Tax Act has not been seriously questioned by the applicant's learned counsel. All that he urges, however, is that to make the proceedings an honest effort at assessment, there must be some reasons given for the assessment made. In broad terms, this proposition can be accepted, though in revisional proceedings under the Act any minute scrutiny of the reasons given will be out of place. In this particular case it is not correct to say that no reasons have been given. "I have estimated these figures", says the Assessing Officer in respect of the figures of gross turnover determined by him for the Akola and Malkapur shops, "after giving due consideration to the misclassification made by the assessee in the accounts of other branches." In the circumstances in which he found himself by the inability of the assessee to produce his account books, it is difficult to see how he could have given his reasons at any great length. It is, of course, possible that another officer may have viewed the case from a different angle; but that possibility by itself does not vitiate the proceedings of the officer who actually handled the case. Moreover, the contention that a particular figure of percentage enhancement was appropriate and that another figure was not cannot be said to raise any substantial question of law, which is the only ground on which revision can be considered.