Late-produced accounting records may be rejected for genuineness; turnover may be estimated from past history accordingly.

Authorities may refuse to accept late-produced accounting records where timing, prior statements and surrounding circumstances cast doubt on their genuineness; such refusal upheld as lawful. Affidavits alleging facts remain admissible material but may be accepted or rejected after credibility appraisal and do not require automatic adoption; appellate findings treating the affidavit as insufficient are sustained. Where books are not accepted, estimation of annual turnover using past turnover history is a permissible basis and an assessment fixed at levels consistent with prior years does not amount to arbitrary or excessive assessment.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the revising and appellate authorities erred in refusing to examine and rely on the account books produced by the assessee; (ii) Whether the affidavit filed by the assessee was material and required acceptance by the authorities; (iii) Whether determination of turnover for the whole year on the basis of past history was justified and whether the assessment was excessive.

Issue (i): Whether the revising and appellate authorities erred in refusing to examine and rely on the account books produced by the assessee.

Analysis: The authorities found the books to be suspicious given the circumstances of their late production and the prior statement that books were destroyed by fire. The availability of books after the assessment order was passed, coupled with the timing and surrounding facts, permitted the authorities to disbelieve or refuse reliance on them. The authorities were not obliged to accept the newly produced books without being satisfied of their genuineness.

Conclusion: The refusal to examine or rely on the late-produced account books was not an error in law and is upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the affidavit filed by the assessee was material and required acceptance by the authorities.

Analysis: The affidavit contained allegations that were considered by the appellate authority as part of the material before it. An authority may accept or reject an affidavit based on its assessment of credibility and supporting facts. Absence of an express rejection does not amount to non-consideration where the authority's conclusions reflect appraisal of the allegations.

Conclusion: The appellate and revising authorities did not err in treating the affidavit as not sufficient to alter the assessment.

Issue (iii): Whether determination of turnover for the whole year on the basis of past history was justified and whether the assessment was excessive.

Analysis: Past turnover history is a relevant basis for estimating turnover where books are not accepted. The authorities applied past years' figures and fixed turnover at a level consistent with prior assessments; the turnover fixed for the year in dispute was not higher than prior years and was within permissible estimation based on past history.

Conclusion: The determination of turnover for the whole year on the basis of past history was justified and the assessment does not suffer from being arbitrary or excessive.

Final Conclusion: The revisional and appellate findings rejecting the late-produced books and affidavit and determining turnover on past history are sustained, resulting in dismissal of the revision petition.

---