JUDGMENT
Ramaswami, J.
1. In respect of the assessment year 1974-75 the petitioner submitted a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 93,06,464.21 and Rs. 77,85,805.86 respectively. The assessing officer determined the total turnover at Rs. 91,23,114.57 and the taxable turnover at Rs. 77,94,500. Though the assessing officer did not find any purchase or sale omission, on the ground that there are certain defects in the writing of accounts he rejected the accounts and added 2 1/2 per cent of the taxable turnover on account of probable omissions and defects in the accounts and added a sum of Rs. 59,189.28 on that account to the taxable turnover. He made a further addition of Rs. 6,500 on the taxable turnover. He made a further addition of Rs. 6,500 on edai cooli on purchase of groundnuts. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, while not accepting the contention of the assessee that the rejection of the accounts was not sustainable reduced the addition from Rs. 59,189.28 to Rs. 35,513.57 which is 1 1/2 per cent of the taxable turnover. The addition relating to weighment charges was however retained. On a further appeal to the Tribunal, the authorised representative of the Government accepted the contention of the assessee that there were no material to prove the claim in respect of the weighment charges and accordingly that was deleted. But the main argument of the assessee that the rejection of the accounts was bad was not accepted by the Tribunal. The Tribunal also held that the addition of 1 1/2 per cent could not be said to be unreasonable and in that view the addition of Rs. 35,513.57 to the taxable turnover was accepted.
2. In this revision petition, the learned counsel for the assessee strenuously contended that the rejection of the accounts was unreasonable and so arbitrary and it calls for an interference even in revision by this Court. According to the learned counsel not a single purchase or sale omission was pointed out, that all the defects pointed out are of minor nature and not material in determining the total turnover, that merely because there were certain overwritings and corrections it could not be held that the accounts are incorrectly maintained and that he is fighting this because this may be considered as a precedent in future cases though the tax effect is not very much. While we agree with the contention of the learned counsel that the defects pointed out are of very minor nature and that no single omission of either in purchases or in sales had been pointed out, we are unable to agree with the learned counsel that we could interfere with the finding of fact in revision. It is true that with reference to a total turnover of Rs. 93,06,464.21 and a taxable turnover of Rs. 77,94,500.00 the addition of Rs. 35,513.57 is very minor and could have been avoided by the assessing officer. The learned counsel for the assessee may not also be far wrong in contending that simply for the sake of addition the assessing officers have made it. But all the same, as already stated, the rejection of the accounts mainly depends on facts and the Tribunal after having considered the materials had held that the rejection was not unreasonable. Though we have our own reservations on the question, we are unable to interfere with this order of the Tribunal since our jurisdiction under revision is very limited. With these observations, we dismiss this revision petition. There will be no orders as to costs.
