JUDGMENT ARUN TANDON, J. - Heard Sri Piyush Agarwal, advocate on behalf of revisionist and learned standing counsel on behalf of the department. These four trade tax revisions have been filed against a common judgment and order dated March 10, 2006, passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Bench - I, Kanpur in respect of assessment years 1984-85, 1985-86, 1986-87, and 1987-88. The assessee claimed to be non-taxable having regard to the turnover. However on the basis of survey conducted on November 28, 1987, the assessing authority, vide order dated July 14, 1993, determined the turnover of the assessee at Rs. 1,70,000 (rupees one lac seventy thousand only) for the assessment year 1984-85, Rs. 1,90,000 (rupees one lac ninety thousand only) for the assessment year 1985-86, Rs. 2,30,000 (rupees two lac thirty thousand only) for the assessment year 1986-87, and Rs. 2,60,000 (rupees two lac sixty thousand only) for the assessment year 1987-88. Accordingly tax liability was fastened upon the assessee. Feeling aggrieved by the order so passed by the assessing authority dated July 14, 1993, the assessee filed first appeals (four in number) under section 9 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act before the Commissioner, Trade Tax, Kanpur Region, Kanpur, which was numbered as Appeal Nos. 975 of 1993, 974 of 1993, 973 of 1993 and 972 of 1993. The Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Trade Tax, Kanpur, vide common order dated March 5, 1994 has partly allowed the appeals filed by the assessee and fixed the turnover at Rs. 1,45,500 (Rupees one lac forty-five thousand five hundred only) and has accordingly fixed the tax liability at Rs. 17,886 (rupees seventeen thousand eight hundred and eighty six only). Against this common order of the first appellate authority, the assessee filed Second appeals (four in number) under section 10 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act before the Trade Tax Tribunal, Kanpur, which have been numbered as Second Appeal Nos. 458 of 1994, 457 of 1994, 459 of 1994 and 460 of 1994. The second appeals so filed by the assessee, have since been dismissed by the Trade Tax Tribunal under a common judgment and order dated March 10, 2006. 458 of 1994, 457 of 1994, 459 of 1994 and 460 of 1994. The second appeals so filed by the assessee, have since been dismissed by the Trade Tax Tribunal under a common judgment and order dated March 10, 2006. It is contended on behalf of the assessee that admittedly survey had taken place on November 28, 1987, which can have no relevance qua the assessment of previous years, specifically when there was no other evidence for holding that the turnover as disclosed by the assessee in previous years was incorrect. In support thereof, the assessee has placed reliance upon the judgment of this court in the case of Charan Singh Nand Kishore, Shikohabad v. Commissioner of Sales Tax reported in 2001 UPTC 782 as well as in the case of Commissioner of Trade Tax v. Alauddin Sugar Industries, Bareilly reported in [2001] UPTC 294. In view of the law declared under the judgments referred to above, the learned counsel for the assessee submits that the assessed turnover for the assessment years 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87 could not be reopened nor the liability of tax, fastened in respect thereto. With regard to assessment year 1987-88, which is the relevant year in which the survey was conducted, the assessee has challenged the conclusions arrived at with reference to the facts as noticed during the survey. Learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the department, on the other hand, submits that the enhancement of turnover in respect of previous years with reference to the date on which the survey has been made is based on statement made by the assessee himself that he was carrying on business for the last 12 years, therefore, the common judgment and order passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal dated March 10, 2006 calls for no interference under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. From the judgments relied upon by the assessee, it is apparently clear that the survey conducted on a particular date is relevant for the assessment years, during which the survey was conducted, specifically when there was no other incriminating material found suggesting suppression of sales by the assessee in the previous years. From the judgments relied upon by the assessee, it is apparently clear that the survey conducted on a particular date is relevant for the assessment years, during which the survey was conducted, specifically when there was no other incriminating material found suggesting suppression of sales by the assessee in the previous years. From the records of the present trade tax revision, it is apparently clear that except for survey conducted on November 28, 1987, no other material whatsoever has been referred or relied upon by the authorities for enhancing the turnover of the assessee in respect of assessment years 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87. In view of the aforesaid the assessment of the turnover made by the assessing authority as well as the tax liability fastened thereto is based on no evidence whatsoever. Accordingly the order of assessment passed in respect of the assessment years 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87 cannot be legally sustained and is hereby quashed. The Trade Tax Revision Nos. 426 of 2006, 480 of 2006 and 481 of 2006 are allowed. So far as the assessment year 1987-88 is concerned, the enhancement of the turnover and the tax liability worked out thereon, is based on material facts as noticed during survey. The Trade Tax Revision No. 427 of 2006 is accordingly dismissed.