Rejection of books of account and turnover estimation upheld where gate passes were not conclusive and no proper entries were shown.

The Tribunal was not found to have exceeded its jurisdiction in examining consignments carried in the first two trucks, because an additional ground could be raised before it even if not urged before the lower authorities. Gate passes issued by the mandi samiti were not treated as conclusive proof that the goods were duly reflected in the books of account, especially where all three trucks were intercepted without form C and the books showed no proper entry. On those facts, rejection of the books of account and estimation of turnover were upheld, and the first appellate authority's deletion of the addition for two trucks was found unsustainable without a remand report.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in considering consignments carried in two trucks when the dispute concerning them had not been specifically challenged in the appeal, and whether the rejection of the books of account and estimation of turnover were justified.

Analysis: The revisionist's claim that the Tribunal could not examine the consignments carried in the first two trucks was rejected. The gate passes issued by the mandi samiti were held not to be conclusive proof that the goods were properly reflected in the books of account, particularly when all three trucks were intercepted without form C and the books showed no proper entry. The Court also held that an additional ground could be raised before the Tribunal even if it had not been urged before the lower authorities. The first appellate authority had deleted the addition relating to two trucks without the benefit of a remand report, and that deletion was found unsustainable on the facts.

Conclusion: The Tribunal did not act beyond jurisdiction, and the rejection of the books of account with estimation of turnover was upheld.

---