JUDGMENT OM PRAKASH, C.J. – Heard counsel for the parties. 2. This revision raises two questions for consideration : firstly, whether the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the defects as pointed out in the book keeping constitute a ground to justify the rejection of the book version; and secondly, whether the Tribunal was right in sustaining an addition of 5 per cent to the taxable turnover disclosed by the assessee for the year under review. 3. The assessing authority rejecting the book version of the assessee observed that "separate details of opening and closing stock of taxable and non-taxable goods are not ascertainable from the books of accounts maintained even though the assessee has filed a statement in this regard and the low gross profit accounted on the sales of taxable goods clearly establishes the unaccounted sales or under-valuation regularly practised by the assessee of a large magnitude and since the assessee has not maintained stock register or stock inventory the correctness of the sales accounted cannot be verified". 4. On appeal, the first appellate authority was of the opinion that the defects pointed out by the assessing authority were not so grave as to justify the rejection of the books and he, therefore, accepted the book version of the assessee. 5. On further appeal, the Tribunal relying on Central Automobiles v. State of Kerala [1975] 35 STC 478 (Ker) and Indo Burma Stationery and Paper Stores v. State of Tamil Nadu [1984] 57 STC 290 (Mad.) held that non-maintenance of the stock register and non-maintenance of the details of the opening and closing stock on taxable and non-taxable goods constituted serious defects warranting rejection of the book version. In both the authorities relied on by the Tribunal, non-maintenance of stock register was found to be the serious defect and a sufficient reason to reject the book version. In the case at hand, the assessee has not only failed to maintain the stock register or closing stock inventories, but he also failed to furnish separate details of opening and closing stock on taxable and non-taxable goods. In our opinion, these defects fully justify the rejection of the book version. 6. The next question for consideration is whether the Tribunal rightly estimated the taxable turnover of the assessee. The first appellate authority assigned the following reasons not to make addition : "(1) ......... In our opinion, these defects fully justify the rejection of the book version. 6. The next question for consideration is whether the Tribunal rightly estimated the taxable turnover of the assessee. The first appellate authority assigned the following reasons not to make addition : "(1) ......... The accounts of the appellant for the preceding years 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87 were accepted by the assessing authority in spite of the non-availability of opening stock and closing stock inventories. (ii) The accounts for the year 1987-88 were also accepted by the Income-tax Department for the purpose of income-tax............. (iii) Moreover, the sales of taxable goods show an increase of Rs. 1,54,791.27 over the previous year". 7. The appellate Tribunal held as under : "........ We find that the estimation of the total and the taxable turnover made by the assessing authority is excessive considering the nature of the defects pointed out by him and the facts and circumstances of the case.......... We find that this taxable turnover fixed by the assessing authority is really excessive considering the defects which exist. During the previous year the respondent has conceded (sic-Disclosed) a taxable turnover of Rs. 51,76,410 and during this year the respondent has conceded (sic-disclosed) a taxable turnover to Rs. 53,31,201.27. So considering all these aspects of the case we find that an addition of 5 per cent to the taxable turnover conceded (sic-disclosed) by the respondent for the year will be sufficient in this case to arrive at the total and taxable turnover for the year". 7. In Raju v. State of Kerala (1993) 2 KLT 781 this Court held that "before reversing a decision of the lower appellate authority, a duty is cast on the Appellate Tribunal to meet the reasonings of the first appellate authority and indicate its own reasons for the conclusion to be reached - It is not sufficient if the Tribunal at its ipse dixit states that it disagrees with the decision of the first appellate authority". 8. From the perusal of the order of the appellate authority and the Tribunal it clearly appears that the Tribunal has not met out the reasoning given by the first appellate authority. When the Appellate Tribunal chose to differ from the first appellate authority, it was the duty of the former to assign cogent reasons to come to a different conclusion on the point of estimating the addition. 9. When the Appellate Tribunal chose to differ from the first appellate authority, it was the duty of the former to assign cogent reasons to come to a different conclusion on the point of estimating the addition. 9. Whereas we agree with the Appellate Tribunal that for the defects as existed, book version of the assessee was liable to be rejected, we hold that the matter has to be remitted to the Appellate Tribunal on the point of estimating the addition to the taxable turnover, inasmuch as the Appellate Tribunal let alone meeting out the reasons given by the first appellate authority has not even referred to them. In the result, the tax revision case partly succeeds and is allowed. The case is remitted to the Appellate Tribunal to refer to the reasons given by the first appellate authority, in so far as addition to the taxable turnover is concerned and then assign its own reasons to justify addition, if any, proposed to be made to the taxable turnover. Petition partly allowed.