JUDGMENT : The judgment of the court was delivered by SATISH CHANDRA, J. - On 20th September, 1966, this court required the Judge (Revisions) to state the case and refer the following question of law for the opinion of this court : "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was any material for rejecting the accounts version ?" The matter relates to the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60. In relation to the year 1958-59 the Judge (Revisions) formed the finding that the account version of the assessee was rightly rejected on the following ground : "The first point to be considered is as to whether the book version should be accepted. In my opinion it should not be accepted. It is crystal clear that the books were not maintained properly. Sales from 10th October, 1958, to 31st October, 1958, according to the cash memos were of about Rs. 38,000 while in the return for the month of October, 1958, they were shown at Rs. 26,730 only. That was the sale figure of only 9 cash memos as admitted by the applicant in his statement made on 31st October, 1958, at the time of survey. It is therefore clear that the applicant did not disclose his correct turnover in the returns. Consequently, the book version cannot be accepted. Moreover, the point was not pressed before the Judge (Appeals) as remarked by him in his judgment, and so it is not open to the applicant to agitate it again before this court." It appears to us that the Judge (Revisions) rejected the books of account for two reasons : one was that the action of the assessing authorities in rejecting the books of account was not agitated before the Judge (Appeals), and the other was the statement of the assessee himself disclosing the discrepancy in the actual sales between the period 10th October, 1958, to 31st October, 1958, on the one hand and the statement of the sales as entered in the accounts and mentioned in his returns for the month of October, 1958. Both the grounds were relevant and furnished material on the basis of which an inference that the books of account were not properly maintained could be reached. It cannot, therefore, be said that there was no material for rejecting the accounts version. Both the grounds were relevant and furnished material on the basis of which an inference that the books of account were not properly maintained could be reached. It cannot, therefore, be said that there was no material for rejecting the accounts version. For the assessment year 1959-60 the accounts were rejected by the following finding : "For the year 1959-60 the accounts could not be accepted as discussed above. Moreover, at one time in the subsequent year the accounts were not found up to date and at another the shop was closed. Though a survey was not made during this year, but that cannot lead to the conclusion that the accounts should be accepted. His accounts could not be accepted in 1958-59 and in the following years also they were found defective in survey. There is also nothing to show that the business went down in 1959-60 suddenly." It appears that the assessee's shop was surveyed on 31st October, 1958, which fell in the assessment year 1958-59. The shop was not surveyed throughout the entire year 1959-60. It was surveyed on 25th October, 1960, which fell in the assessment year 1960-61. At that survey it was found that the books were written up to 21st October, 1960, only. The assessee conducted the business on market days, thrice a week. The last working day fell on 22nd October, 1960. So the difficulty found was that the assessee's books were not posted for the business conducted on 22nd October, 1960. It appears that the assessee had submitted an explanation for this to the effect that he had conducted no business on that date and, therefore, his books of account did not show any entries. From the judgment of the authorities below it appears that in the subsequent year this version was not believed. The shop was next surveyed on 29th December, 1960. On that day, it was found closed. These are the two surveys referred to by the Judge (Revisions) in his order. It will be seen that both these surveys were made in another year. The fact that the shop was found closed on a particular date would not be relevant to judge the veracity of the account books of a businessman. These are the two surveys referred to by the Judge (Revisions) in his order. It will be seen that both these surveys were made in another year. The fact that the shop was found closed on a particular date would not be relevant to judge the veracity of the account books of a businessman. The further fact that on 25th October, 1960, the account books were not found posted for 22nd October, 1960, would, in our opinion, be irrelevant when the question for consideration is whether the assessee's books of account for the year 1959-60 should be accepted or rejected. It is significant that no survey was made in the year 1959-60. This circumstance coupled with the fact that no material whatever in the shape of a suppressed transaction in the year 1959-60 was detected would make the fact that the account books were rejected in 1958-59 and were also held defective in the year 1960-61 quite irrelevant. In our opinion, there was no material for rejecting the accounts of the assessee for the year 1959-60. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us as follows : On the facts and in the circumstances of the case there was material for rejecting the accounts version for the assessment year 1958-59, but there was no material for rejecting the accounts version for the year 1959-60. In view of the divided success the parties would bear their own costs in both the references. The counsel fee is assessed at Rs. 100 in each case.