Judgment :- VEERASWAMI, J. The petitions are concerned with three different years and the short question is whether the Tribunal's view that the estimate of turnover of sales can be based both on the estimated suppressed purchases and estimated suppressed sales is correct. As a result of discovery of certain books from a sugar broker, the department discovered suppression of purchases and sales of sugar. Some of these transactions were found to have been entered into with out-of-State dealers. In applying best judgment the revenue added to the turnover on the basis of suppressed purchases and also on the basis independently of suppressed sales. The Tribunal found nothing wrong in that. In our opinion, the Tribunal's view cannot be supported. It says this : "It cannot be asserted with certainty that the stocks involved in the suppressed sales came out of those involved in the suppressed purchases especially when the appellant has done a large volume of business both purchases and sales." * We should remark that it cannot be asserted with certainty either that the suppressed sales were not made out of the goods purchased by suppressed purchases to any extent. Any estimate of turnover should be reasonable and must be based on some material. When purchases have been made and they have not been shown in the accounts and sales have been made which do not find a place in the accounts, it may be reasonable to assume hat the goods covered by such sales to the extent possible came from the goods purchased but not disclosed. In our opinion, it is only any excess sales not covered by the purchases that can be added. The petitions are allowed in those terms. No costs. The appeals will be restored to the file of the Tribunal so that it may re-estimate the turnovers in accordance with our judgment.