Rejection of account books requires material defects; mere non-production during survey is insufficient without further irregularity.

Regularly maintained account books cannot be rejected merely because the assessee was unavailable when the surveying party visited the shop. The court noted that no clear finding established deliberate evasion of the survey, and at most an adverse inference could be drawn from non-production of accounts before the party. That circumstance alone was insufficient to discard the books without some further defect or material irregularity. On that basis, there was no material to support rejection of the account books, and the finding sustaining their rejection could not stand.

---

---

Issues: Whether there was material to support rejection of the assessee's account books and to sustain the finding that they were rightly rejected.

Analysis: The account books were rejected only because the assessee was not available when the surveying party visited the shop. No clear finding established deliberate evasion of the survey. At most, an adverse inference could be drawn that non-production of accounts before the surveying party might have operated against the assessee. That circumstance, by itself, was insufficient to justify rejection of regularly maintained accounts, and some further defect was required before the books could be discarded.

Conclusion: There was no material to support the rejection of the account books, and the finding sustaining such rejection could not stand.

---