JUDGMENT K. SUKUMARAN, J. - We are not satisfied that sufficient grounds have been made out for entertaining these tax revision cases. 2. The first substantial objection is relating to the question of limitation. This has been considered by the Tribunal, in paragraph 6 of its order. Reliance was placed on section 19 to contend that the assessment was barred by limitation. There is no question of any escaped assessment, as the very first assessment was only to be concluded. The Tribunal understood the contention, and rightly rejected it by observing : "The assessment is an original assessment and hence the views expressed by the learned advocate of the appellant have no relevancy. It is therefore held that the assessment was not barred by limitation." Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in many other statutes, there are express provisions regarding the fixation of time-limit for finalising the very first assessment. That only justifies the conclusion reached by the Tribunal. 3. The second is essentially in the area of factual adjudication. The books of accounts were rejected by the authorities. The Tribunal found that the rejection was based on proper grounds. The books of accounts which should have been there in the factory were not seen there. Even at the head office the complete books were not available. The assessee himself admitted the perfunctoriness in the performance of its duty in relation to the maintenance of the accounts, by filing a compounding petition and obtaining relief therein. These are sufficient circumstances justifying the Tribunal to uphold the rejection of the books of accounts. 4. The rest is a matter of honest estimate. The Tribunal has adverted to various important factors in considering whether the estimate is unduly harsh or arbitrary. As a matter of fact in recognition of the prima facie substance in some aspects, for the year 1979-80, there was a remit for considering the limited aspects in estimating the turnover. As regards the other years, the Tribunal did not find any such strong enough circumstance. As a matter of fact it observed that the defects were of a grave nature and consequently the assessee's contention did not deserve a more considerate treatment. In the area of assessment of turnover, the Tribunal is the final fact-finding authority. Unless demonstrable perversity is established or other error made out, this Court will be chary of interference in revision. As a matter of fact it observed that the defects were of a grave nature and consequently the assessee's contention did not deserve a more considerate treatment. In the area of assessment of turnover, the Tribunal is the final fact-finding authority. Unless demonstrable perversity is established or other error made out, this Court will be chary of interference in revision. On that ground we decline to entertain the tax revision cases. They are accordingly dismissed. Petitions dismissed.