JUDGMENT K. S. PARIPOORNAN, J. - The revision-petitioner is a firm. It is a registered dealer under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. It deals in rubber. The respondent is the Revenue. We are concerned with the assessment year 1980-81. For various reasons stated in the order of assessment dated March 19, 1984, the books of accounts and returns were rejected. A best judgment assessment was made. The assessee reported a taxable turnover of Rs. 37,53,241.10. The taxable turnover was fixed at Rs. 50,27,550. The assessing authority made an addition of 5 per cent to the conceded turnover of rubber purchased to cover up probable suppressions. The sale of 24,000 kgs. of rubber to M/s. Ceat Tyres of India, Cochin, for Rs. 2,16,000 on the basis of delivery notes Nos. 683868, 683869 and 683870, all dated April 23, 1980, was treated as taxable under section 5A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. In appeal, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) by order dated August 16, 1985, affirmed the order of assessment and the estimate. In still further appeal, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kottayam, by order dated September 4, 1989, affirmed the decision of the authorities below. It is thereafter the assessee has filed this revision. The petitioner assails the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal as erroneous in law. 2. We heard counsel. 3. No serious plea was made for acceptance of the accounts. During surprise inspections of the business place on October 7, 1980 and January 16, 1981, substantial discrepancies in stock were found. The purchase bills were found to be defective. The sale invoices were not serially machine numbered and there were corrections. The records relating to the business transactions recovered from the godown disclose unaccounted transactions. Delivery notes Nos. 683868, 683869 and 683870, all dated April 23, 1980, used for transporting 24,000 kgs. of rubber worth Rs. 2,16,000 were seen cancelled without stating any reason. The duplicate copies of the delivery notes were not made available for verification. These entailed rejection of accounts. All the authorities concurred in holding that the accounts are not acceptable and the return filed by the dealer is not true and correct. We are of the view that the said conclusion is fully justified on facts. 4. The only serious point urged before us was regarding the addition made in treating 24,000 kgs. These entailed rejection of accounts. All the authorities concurred in holding that the accounts are not acceptable and the return filed by the dealer is not true and correct. We are of the view that the said conclusion is fully justified on facts. 4. The only serious point urged before us was regarding the addition made in treating 24,000 kgs. of crepe rubber involved in three delivery notes, mentioned above, as unaccounted sales. The assessee pleaded that the delivery notes were lost. The assessing authority took the view that this plea is unsustainable for more reasons than one. The destruction or loss of the delivery notes was not intimated to the assessing authority in time. No police case was registered against the persons responsible. The duplicate copies of the concerned delivery notes were not made available for verification. The Appellate Tribunal adverted to the above facts and held that the assessee was obliged by the rules to report the loss of the delivery notes immediately. It was not done. The Tribunal further adverted to the statement obtained from the lorry broker which was produced before the assessing authority four years after the event and held that the inordinate delay was not explained. It was further found that the duplicate copies of the delivery notes were not made available for verification. On these facts, the Appellate Tribunal held that the assessing authority was justified in treating the quantity of 24,000 kgs. of crepe rubber involved in the delivery notes as unaccounted sales. We are of the view that the question as to whether 24,000 kgs. of crepe rubber involved in the three delivery notes represented unaccounted sales, is largely a finding on a question of fact. The Appellate Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish the bona fides of its contentions in that regard. 5. We are of the view that the finding so arrived at by the Appellate Tribunal is justified on facts. The order of the Appellate Tribunal does not suffer from any error of law. The revision is without merit. It is dismissed. Petition dismissed.