JUDGMENT OM PRAKASH, C.J. – Heard counsel for the parties. 2. These revisions relate to the years 1985-86 and 1986-87. Assessments for the years in question were completed by the assessor, authority rejecting returns filed by the assessee and the book version of the assessee and by estimating the total taxable turnover for these years. 3. Aggrieved the assessee approached the Appellate Assistant Commissioner for both the years. The appellate authority recorded the following finding affirming the order of the assessing authority : "I have examined the above contentions and perused the records. The assessing authority on verifying the accounts found that the appellant has sent arid flour worth Rs. 23,450 to Palghat dealers through delivery notes for sale on commission basis, but no evidence was produced before the officer to prove the claim of commission sales for the above commodity. The appellant has contended in the reply to the pre-assessment notice that the goods in question have been accounted as commission sales in 1986-87. The contentions are not acceptable. The goods in question was actually sent in the beginning of the year, say April, 1985. It is not explained as to what happened to the goods for more than one year with the dealers at Palghat. Hence the assessing authority is justified in rejecting the claim of commission sales in respect of the above goods and assessing it to tax as direct sales. The contention regarding the 471 bags of arid as normal loss on cleaning and polishing is also not acceptable. The records show that the appellant is purchasing urid. The urid purchased are taken for flouring and urid flour manufactured is sold. The appellant has claimed 471 bags of urid weighing 939.77 quintals as normal loss on cleaning and polishing. The loss cleaned is found to be huge and substantial. The appellant has not produced any concrete evidence to substantiate the loss before the officer or at the time of hearing the appeal. I therefore, find no merits in the contention. The contention is therefore rejected." 4. The dispute was further carried before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal by the assessee which concurred with the appellate authority and since the Appellate Tribunal affirmed the reasons given by the appellate authority, no further reasons were added by the appellate authority. 5. I therefore, find no merits in the contention. The contention is therefore rejected." 4. The dispute was further carried before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal by the assessee which concurred with the appellate authority and since the Appellate Tribunal affirmed the reasons given by the appellate authority, no further reasons were added by the appellate authority. 5. It is on these facts the assessee has come up in revision to this Court raising omnibus question whether the order passed by the Tribunal is legally sustainable and whether the order of the Tribunal is perverse. It is well-settled that if an authority affiance the order of the lower authority then no detailed order need be passed and the reasons of the lower authority, which are affirmed, need not be reproduced. In the order of affirmation the reasons given by the lower authority are just the same as if they are given by the higher authority. We have carefully gone through the order of the appellate authority reproduced above. The appellate authority clearly stated that no eye witness whatsoever was produced before the assessing officer by the assessee to prove the claim of commission sales of urid flour sent to the Palghat dealer. When no evidence was adduced before the assessing officer and the appellate authority, we see no error in the order of the appellate authority which was affirmed by the Appellate Tribunal, rejecting the claim of the commission sales as set out by the assessee. 6. The next question for consideration before the appellate authority was whether the assessee rightly claimed 471 bags of urid weighing 939.77 quintals as normal loss on cleaning and polishing. The appellate authority was of the view that the assessee miserably failed to produce any evidence to substantiate the loss before the assessing officer or even in the appeal. This being the state of affairs the appellate authority rejected the claim of loss as set up by the assessee and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the same finding of the appellate authority was affirmed by the Appellate Tribunal. On the fact situation of this case no exception can be taken to the view taken by the Appellate Tribunal. Both the T.R. Cs. therefore, fail and are dismissed. Petitions dismissed.