JUDGMENT Vikram Nath, J. - Heard Sri B. K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the applicant. Despite the fact that the affidavit of service has been filed by the applicant no one has put in appearance on behalf of the dealer - opposite party. The issues and questions of law raised in these three revisions being common they have been taken together and are being decided by this common order. These three revisions have been filed by the Commissioner of Trade Tax under section 11(1) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 relating to the assessment year 1999-2000, with regard to three different dealers. The questions of law sought to be raised in these revisions are : "(i) Whether the Tribunal was legally justified in reducing the sale rate of sand at Rs. 30 without any basis on record ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Trade Tax Tribunal is justified in estimating the taxable turnover below the royalty paid by the dealer inasmuch as the royalty paid by the dealer forms part of the taxable turnover of the dealer ?" All the three dealers carry on business of mining of sand. For carrying on mining activity a person is required to obtain a lease for which he has to pay royalty to the State. In the case of Mathura Prasad (TTR No. 2584 of 2005) the royalty paid was Rs. 10,26,000 whereas the taxable turnover was declared by the dealer as Rs. 7,14,000. In the case of Prem Chandra (TTR No. 2585 of 2005) royalty paid was Rs. 4,92,040 and the taxable turnover was declared as Rs. 3,10,027. In the third case of Harish Chandra royalty deposited was Rs. 4,04,378 and the taxable turnover was declared as Rs. 59,974. All the three dealers have shown their selling rates of sand as Rs. 10 per cubic metre. The dealers had further disclosed the quantity of sand removed. The assessing officer on receipt of all such returns issued show-cause notice calling upon the dealers to explain under what circumstances such low rate of sale had been disclosed, which did not even cover the amount of royalty deposited by each of them. 10 per cubic metre. The dealers had further disclosed the quantity of sand removed. The assessing officer on receipt of all such returns issued show-cause notice calling upon the dealers to explain under what circumstances such low rate of sale had been disclosed, which did not even cover the amount of royalty deposited by each of them. The dealers submitted their explanations that the sand was of low quality, proper transportation was not available, there was water logging and all kinds of other pleas were raised to justify the low rate of sale. The assessing officer disbelieved the explanation tendered by the dealers. He also recorded a finding that the cash memos prepared by the dealers appeared to have been made at the same time and were bogus. He also recorded a finding that the account books had not been properly maintained in accordance with law by the dealer. However, the assessing officer accepted the quantity of the sand removed by each of the dealer. But at the same time estimated the selling rate at Rs. 40 per cubic metre. In doing so, he also relied upon the judgment of the apex court in the case of Dyer Meakin Breweries Ltd. v. State of Kerala reported in [1970] 26 STC 248 for the proposition that all the expenditure incurred prior to the sale would form part of the taxable turnover. On these findings the assessing officer estimated the turnover and imposed liability of tax on each of the dealer vide separate assessment order each dated December 24, 2002. All the dealers filed appeals which were dismissed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) by order dated August 31, 2002. Thereafter the dealers preferred second appeals, which were clubbed together and the Tribunal vide judgment and order dated August 1, 2005 allowed all the three appeals and accepted the turnover disclosed by the dealers and accordingly set aside the tax liability. It is against this judgment that the present revisions have been filed. Sri B. K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel, has submitted that the royalty paid by the dealers for obtaining the lease for sand mining was apparently a part of the taxable turnover and any other expenses made by the dealers prior to the sale of sand, in order to acquire right for such sale would also form part of the taxable turnover. In support of this contention he has relied upon not only the decision of Dyer Meakin Breweries Ltd. [1970] 26 STC 248 but also the following three decisions : (i) Chiranji Lal Bhang Dealer, Aligarh v. Commissioner of Sales Tax reported in [2006] UPTC 513. (ii) State of H.P. v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. reported in [2005] 142 STC 1 (SC); [2005] 5 RC 307; [2005] 28 NTN 71. (iii) Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh reported in [2004] 134 STC 344 (SC); [2004] 2 RC 11; [2003] JT 9 SC 595. Sri Pandey has further submitted that the findings recorded by the assessing officer rejecting the account books were not only based on the facts that the taxable turnover was less than the royalty deposited by each of the dealers but also for other reasons, as for example the assessing officer found that the cash memos submitted by the dealer did not appear to be genuine and were bogus inasmuch as from a perusal thereof they appeared to have been prepared at the same time. Further it was submitted that the assessing officer has also recorded that all the dealers had not maintained the complete account books as required under law which also entails rejection of account books. According to Sri Pandey, the Tribunal, without dealing with the reasoning given by the assessing officer, has allowed the second appeals and has accepted the turnover declared by the dealers thereby vitiating the impugned judgment. He further submitted that the finding of the Tribunal accepting the account books could not be sustained as the Tribunal did not have any other material before it which could convince that the account books were properly maintained in accordance with law. Merely because the assessing officer has accepted the quantity of the sand removed as declared by the dealer it could not lead to acceptance of complete account books including the rate of sale disclosed by the dealer. Having considered the submissions made by Sri B. K. Pandey and after perusal of the record and the authorities relied upon by him, I am of the view that the questions of law as raised by the Department require consideration. No prudent man carries on business to suffer losses. Business is carried on to earn profits and is a source of income. No prudent man carries on business to suffer losses. Business is carried on to earn profits and is a source of income. If there is no profit, i.e., where the sales do not exceed the expenditure, it would amount to diminishing of his own resources. At the same time it cannot be said that they do not ever suffer losses, but there have to be cogent reasons for the same. Normally a business should at least fetch the amount invested if not any profit over and above, the investment. Businesses which are to continue for years together, initially may not reap profit but with passage of time it gears up and the business starts running into profit as compared to the investment made and the sale consideration received. The present case is a case of fixed-term business. A mining lease is for a fixed term and is given only after a public auction or by opening of tenders. It is not that the mining lease could be thrust on any person rather the person applying for mining lease is well aware of the goods which it will receive in lieu of lease, and for which the premium and the royalty amount are already known to such person. The other expenses involved in obtaining such lease are also not hidden but are known to the party applying. In the present case quality of the sand which the dealer was to excavate would normally be known. The area of mining is also determined. It could thus, safely be concluded that the business of mining lease is a planned business and is not a business of unknown potential. Therefore, it would be difficult to hold that the turnover of sale under a mining lease would be less than the amount of expenditure involved in obtaining the lease for removal and sale of sand. This would be normal expectation of a businessman carrying on sand mining but it cannot be conclusively said that there cannot be any loss in mining activity. There may be loss because of litigation, there may be loss because of change of the route of the river, there may be loss on account of certain unforeseen circumstances. This would be normal expectation of a businessman carrying on sand mining but it cannot be conclusively said that there cannot be any loss in mining activity. There may be loss because of litigation, there may be loss because of change of the route of the river, there may be loss on account of certain unforeseen circumstances. In the present case the explanation given by the dealer was a routine kind of explanation that the quality of sand was of low grade, there was water logging and the mining area was not even. None of the reasons given appears to be sound and acceptable. All these aspects cannot be said to have arisen after grant of lease but in fact existed when the dealer had applied for grant of lease. Nobody takes a lease with open eyes for suffering losses. The authorities relied upon by Sri Pandey also supports the findings recorded by the assessing officer. In the case of Dyer Meakin Breweries Ltd. [1970] 26 STC 248 and Chiranji Lal Bhang Dealer [2006] UPTC 513 the apex court and this court have held that where estimation of turnover is to be made, the expenses incurred and adding to it a reasonable amount of profit would be justified estimation. The Tribunal has thus, erred in accepting the account books for the reasons recorded above. The matter requires reconsideration by the Tribunal in accordance with law and the observations made above. The Tribunal may compute the turnover of the dealers which may include not only expenses incurred by the dealers for getting the mines of sand but will also include reasonable amount of profit. The order of the Tribunal dated August 1, 2005 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal for reconsideration in accordance with law and the observations made above. The revisions stand allowed. There shall however be no order as to costs.