Estimated additions based on rejected books remained a question of fact, so revision raised no legal issue.

Estimated additions made after rejection of books of account were deleted by the first appellate authority and the Tribunal on factual assessment, and the High Court held that no question of law arose in revision. Estimation of turnover was treated as a question of fact, and since the lower authorities' findings were supported by the record, no legal error was shown in the impugned order. The revisional challenge therefore failed and the Tribunal's order was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the deletion of estimated additions made after rejection of books of account gave rise to any question of law warranting interference in revision.

Analysis: The additions had been made on an estimate basis after discrepancies were noticed in the assessee's books, but both the first appellate authority and the Tribunal deleted them on factual assessment. Estimation of turnover is a question of fact, and once the factual findings were recorded by the lower authorities, no legal error was shown in the impugned order. On that basis, no question of law was found to arise for consideration in revision.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the department and in favour of the assessee; interference in revision was declined.

Final Conclusion: The revisional challenge failed because the controversy turned on factual estimation rather than any reviewable legal issue, leaving the Tribunal's order undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where additions are made on estimate and the factual findings of the appellate authorities and Tribunal are supported by the record, the matter remains one of fact and does not give rise to a question of law in revision.

---