JUDGMENT K. K. USHA, J. – Revenue is the revision petitioner. Relevant assessment year is 1984-85. Challenge is against the order passed by the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Palghat in T. A. No. 9 of 1992 filed by the assessee who is respondent herein. Rejecting the return filed by the respondent best judgment assessment was passed on May 28, 1991. The assessee took up the matter in appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Kozhikode who confirmed the order of assessment. On further appeal, the Tribunal granted substantial relief to the assessee. Aggrieved by the above, the Revenue has come up in revision. 2. The assessee is engaged in the business in foodgrains, edible oil, etc. His business place was inspected by the sales tax authorities on August 30, 1984. Irregularities were noted. On interception of a vehicle carrying goods for the assessee on December 10, 1984 it was found that there was unaccounted purchase of vanaspathy valued at Rs. 6,375. The offence of non-maintenance of true and complete account found out at the time of inspection was admitted by the assessee and it was compounded by imposing a fine. The vehicle and goods intercepted were released on payment of penalty. In view of the above irregularities, an addition of 10 per cent was made to the reported turnover. 3. The income-tax authorities had conducted a raid in the premises of the assessee. Pursuant thereto the assessee had voluntarily returned additional income of Rs. 1,47,979.69 before the income-tax 'authorities. The assessing authority under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act treated the above amount as the profit derived from unaccounted sales. Calculating the profit at 1.93 per cent sales turnover was estimated at Rs. 76,67,305. The above amount was added back to the conceded turnover. The assessing authority disallowed the exemption to the extent of Rs. 16,19,912.25 claimed by the assessee on the commission sale. Thus the total and taxable turnover were at Rs. 2,27,01,279.31 and Rs. 1,31,09,910 respectively. 4. The Tribunal reduced the estimate to 5 percent from 10 per cent. It also deleted an amount of Rs. 76,67,305 estimated sales turnover on the basis of the income disclosed by the assessee before the income-tax authorities. The Tribunal also allowed exemption to the extent of Rs. 16,19,912.25 as claimed by the assessee on the basis of consignment sales for and on behalf of non-resident principals. It also deleted an amount of Rs. 76,67,305 estimated sales turnover on the basis of the income disclosed by the assessee before the income-tax authorities. The Tribunal also allowed exemption to the extent of Rs. 16,19,912.25 as claimed by the assessee on the basis of consignment sales for and on behalf of non-resident principals. The main contention taken before us by the learned Government Pleader related to the second and third items of reliefs granted by the Tribunal to the assessee. The learned Government Pleader would submit that the two tests laid down by the Supreme Court in Girdhari Lal Nannelal v. Sales Tax Commissioner, MP, [1977] 39 STC 30, have been satisfied in the present case and therefore there was no justification in the Tribunal deleting the amount added to the sales turnover on the basis of the income disclosed by the assessee to the income-tax authorities. As mentioned earlier, the income-tax authorities had conducted a raid in the premises of the assessee on February 21, 1985. Thereupon the assessee returned an additional income of Rs. 1,47,979.69 under section 273A of the Income-tax Act. He further stated that during the relevant year he had received income not only from business but also from plying lorries and taxi. A copy of the profit and loss account for the year had been furnished by the assessee. It would show that income from lorries was Rs. 57,000 and income from car hire charges was Rs. 18,000. Rs. 1,47,979.69 has therefore to be taken as the income from the business of the assessee. We do not find any merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the assessee that the statement of the and is based on a rational basis. Adjudging from the said point assessee in reply given to the pre-assessment notice that during of view, it cannot be said that by providing a higher rate of the relevant year he had received income not only from the tax for dealers having high turnover is in any way unreasonable business but also from plying lorries and taxi is only a general or irrational. Therefore, this ground as well fails. statement and therefore it cannot be used against him to assign Rs. 1,47,979.69 as income from business. Therefore, this ground as well fails. statement and therefore it cannot be used against him to assign Rs. 1,47,979.69 as income from business. Going by the statement of the assessee in his reply to pre-assessment notice together with the profit and loss account submitted by him, no other interpretation is possible. If that be so, the learned Government Pleader is fully justified in submitting that both the tests laid down by the Supreme Court namely, (i) the amount was the income of the assessee; (ii) the amount represented profits from income realised as a result of transactions liable to sales tax and not from other sources, are satisfied in this case. We have no doubt that the Tribunal has committed an error in deleting the estimation of sales turnover of Rs. 76,67,305 on the basis of the additional income of Rs. 1,47,979.69 returned by the assessee to the income-tax authorities. 5. Then the only other question to be considered is whether the finding of the Tribunal that the assessee is entitled to exemption for the sales turnover of Rs. 16,19,912.25 is correct. According to the learned counsel for the assessee, the turnover in respect of which exemption was so claimed related to consignment sales which are inter-State sales. Reliance was placed on photo copies of the agreement dated April 1, 1984 alleged to have been entered into between the assessee and the principal outside the State and also between the assessee and the alleged sub-agent outside the State. The learned Government Pleader points out that the agreement between the principal and the assessee was produced only before the Tribunal. It was not available before the assessing authority. According to the Revenue, there is no merit in the contention raised by the assessee that when goods are sent by him outside the State it was a consignment sale entered into for and on behalf of his principal. The learned Government Pleader points out that the agreement between the assessee and the purchaser outside the State to whom he sends the goods has described the assessee as principal and not as the agent of the original principal. Under these circumstances, he would contend that there is no inter-State sale as claimed by the assessee and therefore no claim for exemption can be maintained. Under these circumstances, he would contend that there is no inter-State sale as claimed by the assessee and therefore no claim for exemption can be maintained. After going through the assessment order and the orders passed by the first appellate authority and the Tribunal we are of the view that the authorities have not examined all the necessary aspects before coming to the different conclusions. But at the same time the nature of the transaction reveals that the assessee should be given a further opportunity to adduce evidence to support his claim for exemption. 6. We therefore set aside the order of the Tribunal under challenge except to the extent it has reduced the estimate from 10 per cent to 5 per cent. We affirm the view taken by the assessing authority as well as the first appellate authority regarding the inclusion of the amount of Rs. 76,67,305 on the basis of the additional income returned by the assessee before the income-tax authorities. As far as the claim put forward by the assessee for exemption in respect of the turnover of Rs. 16,19,912.25, we remit the matter to the assessing authority for fresh consideration. It will be open to the assessee to adduce additional evidence, if any, in support of his claim. The assessing authority will examine the matter in the light of the provisions of law on the basis of the evidence adduced by the assessee and final orders will be issued as expeditiously as possible. The revision petition is partly allowed as above. Petition allowed partly.