JUDGMENT PRAKASH KRISHNA, J. - The present revision is directed against the order passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal in Second Appeal No. 195 of 1991 for the assessment year 1983-84 (U.P.). The dealer - applicant carries on the business of manufacturing and selling of bricks. The disclosed firing period of the brick kiln was accepted in respect of the second season. However, the authorities below have not accepted the disclosed firing period in respect of the first season on the fact as found in the survey dated June 4, 1983. The disclosed firing period in the second season was from June 16, 1983 to June 30, 1983. The assessing authority took the view that in view of the fact, as found in the survey dated June 4, 1983, the brick kiln was fired on June 5, 1983 and it continued up to June 30, 1983. The said finding has been confirmed by the Tribunal. In the memo of revision although four questions have been framed but the learned counsel for the applicant pressed the revision on question No. (iii) only which is reproduced below : "(iii) Whether the rejection of disclosed firing period at 86 days and estimate at 97 days is based on material and is legally justified ?" Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record. When the matter was taken up earlier, this court by the order dated July 2, 2007 directed the applicant to file a copy of the survey report dated June 4, 1983. In compliance therewith, along with the supplementary affidavit, a copy of the said survey report has been filed as annexure SA1. A bare perusal of the said survey report would show that at the time of survey it was found that the brick kiln was closed due to fault in the chimney. The surveying officer was informed by the person present on the spot that it is expected that after repair of the chimney, the brick kiln will be fired by the dealer. On the basis of the above statement, the authorities below including the Tribunal presumed that in the second season the brick kiln was fired on June 5, 1983 instead of June 16, 1983. Therefore, they have added 11 days in the firing period. On the basis of the above statement, the authorities below including the Tribunal presumed that in the second season the brick kiln was fired on June 5, 1983 instead of June 16, 1983. Therefore, they have added 11 days in the firing period. Sri Krishna Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant submits, and in my view rightly, that on the basis of the survey, it cannot be presumed that the brick kiln was actually fired on June 5, 1983. On June 4, 1983 when the premises was surveyed, it was expected that firing will take place on June 5, 1983. The date "June 5, 1983" was only a expected date. But according to the dealer it could not take place on June 5, 1983 as it was expected but on June 16, 1983 the brick kiln was actually fired. In the absence of any material to show that the brick kiln was actually fired on June 5, 1983, the inference drawn by the authorities below on the basis of the said survey itself is not justified. It may be noticed that at the time of survey, the account books were found complete. No other discrepancy was noticed. Even the assessing authority has not found any discrepancy, incompleteness or incorrectness in the account books maintained by the dealer - applicant. A best judgment assessment can be made only when it is found that such return submitted by the dealer is incomplete or the account books do not reflect the correct turnover. The proviso to section 7(3) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act can be resorted to only when the return submitted to the assessing authority is incorrect or incomplete. The book version has been rejected by all the authorities below on presumption and assumption. I find sufficient force in the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant that rejection of the account books on the facts of the present case was arbitrary. The Tribunal has not referred to any circumstances or any material to discard the disclosed firing period. In the absence of any material to discard the disclosed firing period, the order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained. In the result, the revision succeeds and is allowed and question No. (iii) is answered in favour of the dealer - applicant and it is held that there was no material before the Tribunal to reject the disclosed firing period. In the absence of any material to discard the disclosed firing period, the order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained. In the result, the revision succeeds and is allowed and question No. (iii) is answered in favour of the dealer - applicant and it is held that there was no material before the Tribunal to reject the disclosed firing period. In other words the disclosed firing period is accepted. No order as to costs.