Revision scope over account books is limited where genuineness is a factual finding supported by evidence.

Sufficient cause was shown for the delayed filing of the revisions, so the delay was excused and the matters could be heard on merits. In revision under section 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, the Tribunal's acceptance of the assessee's account books was treated as a finding of fact because it rested on reasons given for accepting the books and the explanation for missing supporting records. Such factual findings could not be reopened in revision unless they were unsupported by evidence, based on inadmissible evidence, or contrary to evidence. No revisional interference was warranted, and the revisions were dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the delay in filing the revisions should be condoned; (ii) whether the Tribunal's acceptance of the assessee's account books could be interfered with in revision under section 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948.

Issue (i): Whether the delay in filing the revisions should be condoned.

Analysis: On the affidavit explaining the delay, sufficient cause was found for the belated filing. The delay was therefore excused for the revisions to be heard on merits.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal's acceptance of the assessee's account books could be interfered with in revision under section 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948.

Analysis: The Tribunal had assigned reasons for accepting the account books and accepting the assessee's explanation for the absence of certain supporting records. The sufficiency or insufficiency of material for accepting or rejecting account books, and the correctness of the inference drawn about their genuineness and truthfulness, was treated as a question of fact. Such findings could not be reopened in revision unless unsupported by evidence or based on inadmissible evidence or contrary evidence.

Conclusion: No revisional interference was warranted, and the finding accepting the account books stood.

Final Conclusion: The revisions disclosed no ground for interference and were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: In revision under section 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, the sufficiency of material supporting acceptance or rejection of account books and the inference as to their genuineness are questions of fact, not questions of law, unless the finding is unsupported by evidence or is otherwise vitiated by inadmissible or contrary evidence.

---