Judgment :- RAMASWAMI, J. The assessee is a dealer in groundnut, groundnut kernel, groundnut oil and cakes. For the asst. yr. 1965-66 he returned a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 64, 97, 207-02 and Rs. 16, 74, 348-09 respectively. The account books produced by the assessee disclosed that the purchase of groundnut kernel amounted to Rs.21, 26, 112.85 and the purchase of groundnut amounted to Rs. 9, 87, 759.86. But a huge quantity of this purchase was not supported by any bills. The petitioner also crushed the kernel in his own oil mill and sold oil and cakes, but no manufacturing account was maintained by him. In addition to the sale of oil manufactured by him he was also purchasing and selling groundnut oil and cake. In respect of the purchase of groundnut oil a turnover to the extent of Rs. 2, 85, 000/- was not supported by bills, and the petitioner had only some bought notes Similarly for the purchase of oil cakes also, in some cases they were not covered by bills, but there were only bought-notes, which amounted to Rs. 20, 073/-. The petitioner has sold during the assessment year groundnut kernel purchased by him for a sum of Rs. 6, 08, 419-75. It was stated that there were sales bills, but they did not give full details of the purchasers and their addresses. On this ground the assessing officer considered that the account books were not reliable and that an addition to the turnover disclosed in the accounts was called for. He decided that an addition of 50 per cent to the sales turnover of groundnut and to the purchase of groundnut oil and cakes which were not covered by regular bills would be necessary. Accordingly he added a sum of Rs. 4, 56, 746/-. The order was confirmed by the AAC and the Tribunal. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, as regards the bought notes relating to the purchase of groundnut oil and cakes, he had even given the names of the sellers and their addresses, and that therefore there was no case for addition. It is seen from the orders that notices sent to the respective sellers were returned unserved. Relying on the Judgment of this Court dt. 2nd April, 1968 in W.P. No. 198 of 1967, etc. It is seen from the orders that notices sent to the respective sellers were returned unserved. Relying on the Judgment of this Court dt. 2nd April, 1968 in W.P. No. 198 of 1967, etc. learned counsel contended that merely because the notices sent to the sellers were returned unserved, his purchases could not be disbelieved. It is true that, in the decision of this Court offered to above, it has been observed that from the mere fact that the sellers were not traceable, it would not follow that the stock account was incorrect. It is seen in that case it was contended that if the purchase account, stock account and the sales account had all been correctly written. The learned Judges observed that, if that was so, on the mere fact that the letters were returned unserved as not traceable, the account books could not be rejected. In fact, the learned Judges only set out the principle and remanded the matter to the authorities below to consider the question themselves. In this case, as already noticed, the purchases of groundnut kernel and groundnuts were not supported by bills, in some cases, and the petitioner was not maintaining any manufacturing account. In those circumstances, the non-acceptance of the bought notes could not be said to be unreasonable. Further, if the purchases of groundnut kernel and groundnuts were not supported by bills, the sales turnover of groundnut kernel could not be taken to be the correct figure. The authorities below considered that there was a possible omission even for the sales of groundnut kernel, because the purchase of groundnut kernel was not properly accounted for. We therefore consider that the rejection of the accounts was justified. 3. Coming to the quantum of addition, we think that the addition of 50 per cent is very high and is not called for on the facts and circumstances of this case. It is seen that, so far as the sales of groundnut kernel are concerned, the ground on which the addition was made was that the bills did not give details about the purchasers and their addresses. But, as pointed out by learned counsel, r. 26 of the Tamil Nadu General ST Rules only make it obligatory to give the addresses and other full description in cases where the sale price exceeds Rs. 500/-. But, as pointed out by learned counsel, r. 26 of the Tamil Nadu General ST Rules only make it obligatory to give the addresses and other full description in cases where the sale price exceeds Rs. 500/-. But this does not mean that in respect of sales below Rs. 500/- the bills need not contain full particulars and addressed. The addresses in the bills will enable the assessing officers to counter check and verify the correctness of the accounts. Therefore, though under R. 26 the petitioner was not obliged to give full particulars and addresses, still the fact of not giving the addresses could not be ignored altogether in estimating the addition. But, as we have said, having regard to the fact that the total turnover returned itself was about Rs. 65, 00, 000/- and that the purchase of groundnut kernel which was not supported by regular bills, compared with the total turnover, was not very much, we considered that an addition of 25 per cent in this case would meet the ends of justice. 4. We accordingly delete the addition of Rs. 4, 56, 746/- and direct that only a sum of Rs. 2, 28, 373/- be added to the turnover disclosed in the accounts. Subject to the modification in the addition as directed above, the petition is dismissed. Since we have directed only a modification in the addition, but have substantially confirmed the order of the Tribunal, we direct the petitioner to pay the costs of the respondent. Counsel's fee Rs. 250/-.