JUDGMENT Vikram Nath, J. - The dealer has filed this revision under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act") against the judgment and order of the Trade Tax Tribunal, Aligarh dated June 28, 2006 whereby the second appeal filed by the Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P. has been partly allowed and tax liability of Rs. 3,23,397 has been imposed on the dealer. Although the dealer has framed four questions of law in the memorandum of the revision but all the said questions are interrelated. The only question of law which arises for consideration by this court is whether on the facts and circumstances of the case manipulated enhanced figure of sale and purchase and stock furnished by the dealer to the bank for the purposes of obtaining loan would amount to relevant material for the purposes of reassessment under section 21 of the Act and based on these projected figures, reassessment and determination of turnover and tax liability would be justified ? The dealer is engaged in the business of sale and purchase of iron and steel. For the assessment year 2000-01 it disclosed a turnover of Rs. 1,34,931 and admitted liability of trade tax on the said sale at four per cent. The assessing authority after examining the books of account accepted the disclosed turnover and accordingly passed an assessment order on January 30, 2003. Subsequently the assessing authority learnt about certain returns filed by the dealer before the Jammu and Kashmir Bank, Aligarh wherein the sales for the assessment years in question was shown as Rs. 28,17,832 and purchase of Rs. 24,90,385. The opening stock was valued at Rs. 3,54,000 and the closing stock at Rs. 6,75,000. Based upon the said returns filed by the dealer before the bank, the assessing authority issued a show cause notice dated July 28, 2005 as to why proceedings for reassessment under section 21 of the Act be not initiated. The dealer submitted a reply and explained that the returns filed before the bank had been substantially enhanced and depicted projected figures in the balance sheet, in order to obtain house building loan and also to increase his cash credit limit. Along with his explanation the dealer also furnished an affidavit and a certificate from the bank that the dealer had availed housing loan and the cash credit limit of more than 5.5 lakhs. Along with his explanation the dealer also furnished an affidavit and a certificate from the bank that the dealer had availed housing loan and the cash credit limit of more than 5.5 lakhs. The assessing authority disbelieved the explanation of the dealer and determined the taxable turnover at Rs. 57,34,934 and accordingly imposed a tax liability of Rs. 3,55,397.24 vide order dated September 30, 2005. The dealer preferred an appeal. The Joint Commissioner (Appeals) was of the view that the projected turnover depicted in the balance sheet filed before the bank was only for the purposes of obtaining loan and also for increase of the cash credit limit. It also relied upon two decisions of this court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Prakash Engineering Company reported in [1970] UPTC 426 and also in the case of Commissioner of Trade Tax v. Shri Ram Food reported in [2004] UPTC 680. It further took into consideration actual payment made by the dealer of his telephone bills and electricity bills in the relevant assessment year and also the figures of telephone bills and electricity bills as depicted in the balance sheet before the bank. Aggrieved by judgment of the appellate authority the Commissioner of Trade Tax preferred a second appeal before the Trade Tax Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated June 28, 2006 partly allowed the appeal by reducing the tax liability to Rs. 3,23,397.24 and at the same time maintained the turnover determined by the assessing officer. It is against this order that the present revision has been filed. I have heard Sri Kunwar Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri B. K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the department and have also perused the material on record. The submission of Sri Kunwar Saxena, learned counsel for the dealer - applicant is that in order to obtain house building loan and to increase cash credit limit, it had submitted projected figure of turnover in the balance sheet. It has further been submitted by Sri Saxena that apart from the balance sheet submitted before the bank there was no other material with the department to prove that there have been any actual transaction by the dealer in excess of returns declared by the dealer before the department. It has further been submitted by Sri Saxena that apart from the balance sheet submitted before the bank there was no other material with the department to prove that there have been any actual transaction by the dealer in excess of returns declared by the dealer before the department. He further submitted that the appellate authority had accepted the explanation of the dealer after considering other material evidence with regard to actual payment of telephone and electricity bills whereas the Tribunal without looking into those aspects of the matter and without upsetting the finding and meeting out the reasons of the appellate authority has affirmed the turnover determined by the assessing authority. He has relied upon the following decisions in support of his contention :- 1. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Prakash Engineering Company reported in [1970] UPTC 426. 2. Commissioner of Trade Tax v. Shri Ram Food reported in [2004] UPTC 680. 3. Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow v. Panna Lal Pramod Kumar reported in [2006] 29 NTN 226. 4. P.C. Ittymathew & Sons v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law) reported in [2001] 121 STC 1 (SC); [2001] UPTC 256 (SC). 5. Girdhari Lal Nannelal v. Sales Tax Commissioner, M.P. reported in [1977] 39 STC 30 (SC). From a perusal of the assessment order dated January 30, 2003 it may be noted that before the assessing authority the dealer had maintained all the account books in order and no discrepancy was found. The assessing authority had further noted that the declared turnover of the dealer was progressive from the previous year. It also recorded that there was no material adverse available against the dealer. On these findings the account books had been accepted. The dealer in his reply and also in the reassessment proceedings filed the certificate of the bank to show that he had availed cash credit limit of more than Rs. 5 1/2 lacs and he further availed housing loan of Rs. 7 lacs. It is true that on the basis of actual turnover shown in the returns before the department which was only Rs. 1,34,000 approximately the dealer could not have procured such a high cash credit limit and also the housing loan. In a given case it may be true that the party may project higher and enhanced figure to obtain loan from the bank. It is not unusual. 1,34,000 approximately the dealer could not have procured such a high cash credit limit and also the housing loan. In a given case it may be true that the party may project higher and enhanced figure to obtain loan from the bank. It is not unusual. The question would be to find out as to whether the figures mentioned before the bank depicted the actual turnover and the said party has suppressed its turnover before the department or the party had declared the correct figure of turnover before the department and had projected the imaginary figures before the bank to avail higher limit. From a perusal of the reassessment order of the assessing authority and the order of the Tribunal it is apparent that the reassessment order has been passed only on the basis of the figures disclosed before the bank. No other material was found. No supporting evidence was found to substantiate that the figures given before the bank were correct. There was no material on record to show that apart from the transaction disclosed by the dealer before the department there was any other transaction with any party. In case the account books were to be rejected there have to be sufficient material before the authority to show that the transactions were beyond and outside the account books. The burden lay on the department in such a case, which the department had failed to discharge. Similar view was taken by the apex court in the case of Girdhari Lal Nannelal [1977] 39 STC 30 wherein this court held as follows :- "... As against that, for the purpose of levy of sales tax it would be necessary not only to show that the source of money has not been explained but also to show the existence of some material to indicate that the acquisition of money by the assessee has resulted from transactions liable to sales tax and not from other sources." Further the apex court in the case of P.C. Ittymathew & Sons [2001] 121 STC 1; [2001] UPTC 256 reiterated the decision of the apex court in the case of Girdhari Lal Nannelal [1977] 39 STC 30. A learned single judge of this court in a recent decision in the case of Panna Lal Pramod Kumar [2006] 29 NTN 226 relying upon the aforementioned decision of the apex court again held that additions cannot be made in trade tax matters if the income is from undisclosed sources and there is no material to show that the surrendered income relates to the business activity of the dealer. There is one more aspect of the matter. The appellate authority had relied upon the actual payments made by the dealer with regard to the telephone and electricity bills and it had noticed that figures projected in the balance sheet before the bank depicted much higher figures of the electricity and the telephone bills and actually such bills had never been raised by the telephone or the electricity department. It had, therefore, accepted the explanation of the dealer that the turnover shown before the bank was exaggerated. One more aspect ought to have been looked into which is the previous turnover in the return of the dealer. The assessing authority in the original assessment order had noticed that the return filed before the department for the relevant assessment year was progressive in nature as compared to the returns of the previous year that is to say that the return was higher for the relevant assessment year from the previous year. If the turnover shown before the bank were taken to be correct, the enhancement in the turnover for the relevant assessment year would be too phenomenal and unbelievable. In the two decisions of Prakash Engineering Company [1970] UPTC 426 and Shri Ram Food [2004] UPTC 680 relied upon by the appellate authority and also relied upon by Sri Saxena before this court on behalf of the dealer, it would be noticed that this court had given its nod to accept an explanation of higher projected figure by the dealer for different purposes before different authority. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the explanation given by the dealer and as accepted by the appellate authority appears to be correct. In the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal erred in accepting the turnover shown before the bank to be the actual turnover of the dealer. The revision accordingly succeeds and is allowed. The order of the Tribunal is set aside and that of the appellate authority is maintained. In the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal erred in accepting the turnover shown before the bank to be the actual turnover of the dealer. The revision accordingly succeeds and is allowed. The order of the Tribunal is set aside and that of the appellate authority is maintained. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.