Bharati Sapru, J.:- This is assessee's revision for the year 1993-94 against the order of the tribunal dated 28.5.2002. 2. It is the assessee's contention that during the assessment year 1993-94, the assessee was simply trading in the business of the thinner and other allied solvent and chemicals and it was not indulging in any manufacturing activities. 3. The assessee filed its return and the assessing authority by the order dated 13.2.1995 estimated the turnover of the imported and manufacturing thinner at Rs.5 lacs. 4. Against the impugned order, the assessee filed an appeal and the Asstt. Commissioner (Judicial) passed an order dated 18.7.1995 allowing the appeal in part. 5. The Asstt. Commissioner estimated turnover of imported organic chemical solvent and touling waste at Rs.10,000/- and sale of manufactured thinner at Rs.50,000/- i.e. first appellate authority thought it proper make an addition. 6. The assessee as well as revenue went in second appeals and the tribunal has estimated taxable turnover of the assessee at Rs.4 lacs. 7. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the assessee that the tribunal has made a mistake in making best judgment assessment estimating taxable turnover of the assessee at Rs.4 lacs simply on the basis of the inferences as drawn in the survey dated 31.1.1994. 8. Learned counsel for the assessee has brought on record by way of a supplementary affidavit evidence which was there before the tribunal to show that no manufacturing activities had taken place and the assessee was simply indulging in the business of the trading. 9. He has also argued that the inferences as drawn by the tribunal on the basis of the finding in the survey in which the tribunal has recorded that the no independent note book was found at the time of survey from which it was apparent that there were details of the manufacturing activities between 27.12.1993 to 31.1.1994. 10. The tribunal has recorded that entries in these note books were clearly indicative of the fact that the assessee had indulged in manufacturing in these dates but had not maintained in any register of the manufacturing. 11. 10. The tribunal has recorded that entries in these note books were clearly indicative of the fact that the assessee had indulged in manufacturing in these dates but had not maintained in any register of the manufacturing. 11. Learned counsel for the assessee has drawn the attention of this court to rebut the presumption drawn by the tribunal on the basis of this note books to the evidence appended to the supplementary affidavit dated 29.1.2010 in which the assessee has placed on record the cash memo as well as various parchas of the some amount of the goods as are shown in the note books, which were apprehended in survey dated 31.1.1994. 12. Learned counsel for the assessee has argued that at the most an addition could have been made in the taxable turnover of the assessee as has been done by the Joint Commissioner to the extent of six bills but books of accounts of the assessee could not have been rejected in toto. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the assessee as well as standing counsel and have also perused the supplementary counter affidavit by the State, which do not deny that evidence, which has been filed in supplementary affidavit one was there before the tribunal. 14. In view of the fact that the material evidence was already there before the tribunal, it would be just and fair in the facts and circumstances of the case, if the tribunal would reconsider the matter and reappreciate evidence and give to the assessee one last opportunity of hearing on the basis of the evidence, which is already there in order to establish (a) that he had not indulged in any manufacturing activities in the year in question; and (b) that his account books for the year in question were worthy of being accepted. 15. In view of the above, the matter is remanded to the tribunal to reconsider the matter on these two aspects (a) and (b) as stated above, within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order being placed by the revisionist within three weeks from today. The operation of the impugned order of the tribunal shall remain suspended unless it is recalled/modified or a fresh order, as the case may be, is passed by the tribunal in remand. The operation of the impugned order of the tribunal shall remain suspended unless it is recalled/modified or a fresh order, as the case may be, is passed by the tribunal in remand. The money, if any, deposited by the revisionist in pursuance of the orders passed by the court below as well as the interim order passed by this court shall be remain in deposit and shall be subject to the final order is passed by the tribunal in remand. 16. The revision is disposed of as above. No cost.