Judgment R. Banumathi. J. Being aggrieved by the order of Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (STAT) in TMP.No.558/95 in TA.385/95, Assessee is before us. The petitioners had reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs.29,32,208/- claiming the entire turnover as exempt by way of second sales in the returns filed for the year 1992 – 93. During the course of inspection on 2. 93, a stock variation of Rs.6,176/- was noticed. Besides 3 slips were recovered. The actual suppression was fixed at Rs.2,57,478/- and he made an equal addition towards probable omission and arrived at the estimated suppression of Rs.5,14,956/-. During the course of pendency of the above-said proceedings, the assessing authority had issued a revised notice on 11. 93 pointing out that the petitioners had purchased goods from Kalaivani Metals of Madurai for Rs.4,36,344.80 and was of the view that no such dealer was in existence and consequently proposed to disallow the claim of exemption. The petitioners had filed their objections. The assessing authority confirmed the proposals stated in the show cause notice. 2. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) had modified the order. As regards slip No.1, Appellate Assistant Commissioner had held that while the actual suppression of Rs.1,440/- was found to be in existence and duly admitted there are no grounds to estimate a further addition of 96 times. He sustained the suppression by way of slip No.2. As regards slip No.3, AAC relied on the various documentary evidence filed by the petitioners to conclude that a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was only a loan. He had also deleted the stock discrepancy of Rs.6,176/-. As regards the alleged purchases from Kalaivani Metals, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner having regard to the various documentary evidence filed before him held that the Kalaivani Metals was only a existing dealer. Assessee went in appeal before STAT. In the appeal, Revenue filed the Enhancement Petition praying for restoration of order of Assessing Authority. 3. In the appeal, with regard to Slip No.1, STAT confirmed the finding of Assessing Authority. Insofar as estimated addition of Rs.1,38,240/-, Tribunal held that 50% thereof amounting to Rs.69,140/- could be apportioned as relatable to taxable goods and the balance of Rs.69,140/- treated as non-taxable sales. The Tribunal had also made an equal addition to the actual suppression of Rs.1,440/-. 4. Insofar as Slip No.3, Tribunal set aside order of AAC and restored the actual suppression of Rs.1,10,000/-. The Tribunal had also made an equal addition to the actual suppression of Rs.1,440/-. 4. Insofar as Slip No.3, Tribunal set aside order of AAC and restored the actual suppression of Rs.1,10,000/-. Penalty at 50% of the taxes was also ordered to be restored to the extent of Rs.3,300/-. Insofar as purchase from Kalaivani Metals, Tribunal remitted the matter back to the Assessing Authority for denovo consideration. 5. Chellenging order of STAT, Assessee has filed this revision. In this revision, the following substantial questions of law are raised for consideration:- 1. Whether, in facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Sales Tax Tribunal was justified in setting aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner without finding any illegality in the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner partly allowing the appeal? 2. Whether, in fact and circumstances of the case and in law, the Sales Tax Tribunal was justified in treating the loan transaction as a sale also on the ground that the petitioners are not financiers? 3. Whether, in facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Sales Tax Tribunal ought to have held that the levy of penalty was unjustified and illegal? 6. Question No.1-Slip No.1: AAC held that there was only actual suppression of Rs.1,440/-contains in Serial No.97 dt.21. 93 with the name of party as M/s. Lakshmi Steels. Total value of the slip was Rs.1,440/-. The Assessee has explained that it related to Vinoth, ex-worker of the Assessee and that it was not connected with their business transaction. Assessing Officer assumed that the slip related to the business of the appellants and estimated the transactions for Bill Nos.1 to 96 and estimated the turnover at Rs.1,39,680/-. As the estimation for the alleged bills from Serial Nos.1 to 96 to the tune of Rs.1,39,680/- was only guess work, AAC set aside the assessment of the turnover. But AAC sustained the assessment on Rs.1,440/- being the value noted in Slip No.97. In a best judgment assessment, guess work is inevitable but it should be a reasonable one. AAC was justified in finding that estimated assessment from Serial Nos.1 to 96 was unreasonable. In our considered view, Tribunal was not justified in interfering with the order of AAC in respect of Slip No.1 insofar as estimated assessment. 7. In a best judgment assessment, guess work is inevitable but it should be a reasonable one. AAC was justified in finding that estimated assessment from Serial Nos.1 to 96 was unreasonable. In our considered view, Tribunal was not justified in interfering with the order of AAC in respect of Slip No.1 insofar as estimated assessment. 7. Question No.4 – Slip No.3: A Bank Challan for Rs.1,00,000/- was given as loan to M/s.Reliance Electricals, Coimbatore. Even though number of documents were produced to show that it was only a loan transaction, Assessing Officer held that the Demand Draft related to business transactions and treated as purchase suppression. Before AAC, number of documents were produced – (i) Letter from M/s. Reliance Electricals dt.21. 93 for a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- (ii) Bank Challan dt.21. 93 for taking Demand Draft for Rs.1,00,000/- by Assessee noting the payee name as Reliance Electricals (iii) Copy of Form No.16-B filed by M/s. Reliance Electricals before TDS circle , Coimbatore showing payment of interest to Assessee – Assessee T.S. Metals (iv) Statement of Accounts of M/s. Reliance Electricals for 1992-93 wherein loan amount of Rs.1,00,000/- received from Assessee was reflected. 8. Upon analysis of the above documents, AAC held that the transaction was not related to a business transaction, but Slip No.3 relates to only a loan transaction. In the appeal, Tribunal did not keep in view the number of documents filed by the Assessee. But STAT raised doubts about the documents and observed that money was advanced from the working capital of the business of Assessee. STAT has also expressed its doubts about the transaction on the ground that Assessee had got a Demand Draft and not a Banks Pay Order from its Bank, Union Bank of India. 9. In our considered view, the Tribunal did not keep in view the documents produced by Assessee. Tribunal was not right in saying that the amount could not have been taken from business. The Assessee is a dealer in buying and selling of Utensils having daily collections. Therefore, it cannot be said that the amount so paid to M/s. Reliance Electricals was a colourable device to evade purchase transaction. When findings of AAC was based on documents, STAT was not justified in raising doubts and interfere with the findings of AAC. In such view of the matter, order of STAT in respect of Slip No.3 cannot be sustained. 10. When findings of AAC was based on documents, STAT was not justified in raising doubts and interfere with the findings of AAC. In such view of the matter, order of STAT in respect of Slip No.3 cannot be sustained. 10. Insofar as purchase from M/s. Kalaivani Metals, the dispute as to addition of Rs.4,95,816/- was remitted back to the Assessing Authority for denovo disposal. While deleting the addition, AAC observed that M/s. Kalaivani Metals has renewed its registration from time to time and therefore, it cannot be said to be a bogus dealer. Before STAT, in his written arguments State Representative raised number of points contending that Door No.26D was a residential house and there was no business activity and M/s. Kalaivani Metals had no connection to that place. In the written arguments State Representative had also raised various points to substantiate the contention of Revenue that M/s. Kalaivani Metals is a bogus dealer. Having regard to the various points raised before STAT to substantiate the plea that M/s. Kalaivani Traders is non-existent, Tribunal remitted the matter back to the Assessing Authority. Having regard to various contentions raised by the State Representative, we do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal on this score. 11. In the result, this Tax Revision is partly allowed. Insofar as Slip No.1 and 3, the order of STAT is set aside. Insofar as addition of Rs.4,95,816/-in respect of transaction with M/s. Kalaivani Metals, the order of STAT remitting the matter back to Assessing Authority is confirmed. The Assessing Authority shall consider the matter afresh after affording sufficient opportunity to the Assessee and also to the Revenue and pass orders in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.