Judgment :- K. Raviraja Pandian, J. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras C Bench made in I.T.A.No.1207/Mds/2001 dated 17. 2002 . The relevant assessment year is 1996-97. 2. The facts culminating in filing the present appeal proceed as follows:- The assessee was a firm engaged in the manufacture of beedies. For the assessment year 1996-97, the assessee filed return of income admitting total income of Rs.11,75,230/-. While framing the assessment on the basis of books of accounts, the cost of production of beedies was shown as Rs.77.09 per thousand beedies instead of Rs.78.88 claimed by the assessee and the difference of Rs.1.79 considered for the addition, which worked out to Rs.28,52,236/-. Accordingly the assessing officer added a sum of Rs.28,52,236/- to the total income of the assessee. Being aggrieved by the said order of assessment, the assessee filed appeal before the first appellate authority, who upheld the addition made by the assessing officer However, when the matter was carried on appeal to the Tribunal, the Tribunal deleted the addition made by the assessing officer which was sustained by the first appellate authority. Hence the present tax appeal by framing the following two substantial questions of law. 1. Whether in the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in deleting the additions made ignoring the evidence produced by the assessing officer? 2. Whether in the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that in an assessment made u/s 143(3) additions cannot be made on the basis of any report or comparable case? 3. We heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials on record. 4. The reasoning of the Tribunal for reversing the order of the lower authority stands to reason. The working cost given or published in a news paper never could form a basis for making the assessment. When the assessee produced the books of accounts maintained by it, the cost cannot be varied by the assessing officer by placing reliance on the working cost published in news paper and rejecting the books of accounts. Likewise one assessees cost of production cannot be compared with the cost of production of other assesee, who are manufacturing beedies. When the assessee produced the books of accounts maintained by it, the cost cannot be varied by the assessing officer by placing reliance on the working cost published in news paper and rejecting the books of accounts. Likewise one assessees cost of production cannot be compared with the cost of production of other assesee, who are manufacturing beedies. The production cost may be varied because of varied factors such as smallness of operation, better quality goods such as beedy leaf and tobacco. The Tribunal as a ultimate fact finding authority has recorded a finding that on a perusal of the assessment order, the assessing officer did not find any defect in the books of accounts maintained by the assessee. Even in respect of stock position no defect was found and so also in respect of purchase and manufacturing accounts. As per the finding of the Tribunal the assessee had been maintaining regular books and accounts and when all the materials which are necessary for framing the assessment were maintained and placed before the assessing officer, the assessing officer without considering the same went into tangent and made the assessment on estimation, based on irrelevant materials, which is impermissible in law. The Tribunal has given the reason that even on the best judgment assessment, the action of the assessing officer should not be arbitrary or capricious but it should have reasonable nexus to the available materials. In the case on hand, the assessment was made under Section 143(3) of the Act. The assessee had filed all the relevant details, documents, accounts as required by the Assessing Officer. When such is the case, the addition cannot be based on a guess work or any report or any comparable case without giving details as to why such rate was preferred by the assessing officer as against the cost determined by the assessee and shown in the books of accounts. We are of the view that the Tribunal has reached the correct conclusion. It is well settled and well established legal principle that when materials are placed for assessment the material has to be considered by the assessing officer and if the assessing officer wants to pass an order on his best judgment assessment he must give reasons for not only rejection of books of accounts but also for making the best judgment assessment. 5. 5. In respect of the first question of law, the Tribunal as a fact finding authority has found that there is no comparable data or comparable case made out and followed by the assessing officer for framing the assessment, which was approved by the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals. We do not find any question of law in it and it is only pure and simple factual position. Even the second question of law also has to be decided against the Revenue on the ground that even for making assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, if any addition has to be made in the assessment order, when particularly books of accounts have been placed by the assessee before the assessing officer that has to be done only on the basis of the materials and if the materials are rejected that should be done by giving valid reasons. Hence the tax case appeal is dismissed.