JUDGMENT RAJES KUMAR :- This is a revision under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act") against the order of the Tribunal dated October 18, 2010 for the assessment year 2001-02. The applicant was carrying on the business of manufacturing of glass bangles, glasswares and glass tubes. The assessee disclosed the sales of bangles with effect from November 1, 2001 at Rs. 29,76,000. The bangles have been exempted from tax with effect from November 1, 2001. The assessing authority has rejected the books of account and estimated the turnover at Rs. 84,80,550 as against the disclosed turnover of Rs. 79,26,000. On the basis of the survey dated November 16, 2002, wherein the munim has stated that no manufacturing of glass bangles was carried on since last four years, the assessing authority has held that the applicant had not manufactured glass bangles but had manufactured glasswares and accordingly the suppressed sales of glasswares at Rs. 35,20,000 has been estimated. Being aggrieved by the order of the assessing authority, the applicant filed appeal before the Joint Commissioner (Appeal), Mainpuri. The Joint Commissioner (Appeal), Mainpuri, vide its order dated November 30, 2004 allowed the appeal in part. The appellate authority has upheld the rejection of the books of account and has estimated the taxable turnover of glass bangles at Rs. 14,00,000 for the period April 1, 2001 to October 31, 2001. The appellate authority has held that for the assessment years 1999-2000 and 2000-01 the applicant had disclosed the sale of glass bangles at Rs. 68,51,265 and Rs. 24,28,745, respectively which had been accepted by the assessing authority in these years. The applicant had disclosed the sales in every month. In the assessment year 2001-02 the sales from November 1, 2001 has only been disclosed, which is doubtful and cannot be accepted. The appellate authority accordingly estimated the sales of glass bangles at Rs. 14,00,000 for the period April 1, 2001 to October 31, 2001. Being aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority, the applicant filed second appeal before the Tribunal, Agra. The Tribunal by the impugned order dated October 18, 2010 has allowed the appeal and remanded back the matter to the first appellate authority to decide the appeal afresh. 14,00,000 for the period April 1, 2001 to October 31, 2001. Being aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority, the applicant filed second appeal before the Tribunal, Agra. The Tribunal by the impugned order dated October 18, 2010 has allowed the appeal and remanded back the matter to the first appellate authority to decide the appeal afresh. The appellate authority has held that at the time of survey dated November 16, 2002, the munim was present, who told to the survey officer that since last four years the assessee had not produced/manufactured glass bangles whereas the assessee had disclosed sales of glass bangles at Rs. 29,76,000 from November 1, 2001. The Tribunal held that the assessing officer has rightly opined that the assessee had evaded the sales of glasswares under the garb of manufacturing and sales of glass bangles, which were declared exempted from tax from November 1, 2001. The Tribunal further held that the authorities below have rightly rejected the account books as no plausible explanation regarding aforesaid irregularities has been furnished on behalf of the assessee. On the question of estimate of turnover, the Tribunal has held that the first appellate authority has recorded a contradictory finding and failed to appreciate the correct facts of the case. Much reliance has been placed on the statement of munim made at the time of survey dated November 16, 2002. The Tribunal has doubted the manufacturing and sales of glass bangles for the year under consideration. The Tribunal accordingly remanded back the matter to the first appellate authority for the determination of the turnover afresh. Being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the applicant filed the present revision. Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Garg, counsel for the applicant and Sri B. K. Pandey, learned standing counsel. With the consent of the parties, this revision is being disposed of finally at the admission stage. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that before the Tribunal no appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the first appellate authority. The applicant has only filed appeal, which was under consideration. In the appeal, the only dispute for consideration was the rejection of the books of account and the estimate of taxable turnover of glass bangles at Rs. 14,00,000 for the period April 1, 2001 to October 31, 2001. The applicant has only filed appeal, which was under consideration. In the appeal, the only dispute for consideration was the rejection of the books of account and the estimate of taxable turnover of glass bangles at Rs. 14,00,000 for the period April 1, 2001 to October 31, 2001. There was no dispute that the applicant had manufactured the glass bangles in the year under consideration and, therefore, the Tribunal has acted illegally and exceeded to its jurisdiction in recording the findings that the applicant had not manufactured bangles at all during the year under consideration placing reliance on the statement of munim on the survey dated November 16, 2002. He placed reliance on the decision of this court in the case of G.D. Steels and Gases Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P. reported in [1999] 115 STC 491; [1999] UPTC 35. He further submitted that the survey dated November 16, 2002 is not relevant for the year under consideration and is relevant for the assessment year 2002-03. For the assessment year 2002-03, the assessing authority had considered the survey in detail and on the basis of the affidavit filed by the munim, the plea of the assessee that the statement recorded in the survey report was not correct and in fact the assessee did manufacture bangles in the year under consideration has been accepted. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on the survey dated November 16, 2002. The learned standing counsel supported the order of the Tribunal. Having heard counsel for the parties, I have perused the impugned order and the orders of the authorities below. Before the Tribunal, the applicant had only filed the appeal, which was under consideration. No appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Trade Tax against the order of the first appellate authority. Therefore the finding of the first appellate authority that the applicant manufactured and sold bangles has become final. The only question for consideration before the Tribunal in the appeal of the applicant was the rejection of books of account and estimate of turnover of bangles at Rs. 14,00,000 for the period April 1, 2001 to October 31, 2001 which should have been adjudicated only. The only question for consideration before the Tribunal in the appeal of the applicant was the rejection of books of account and estimate of turnover of bangles at Rs. 14,00,000 for the period April 1, 2001 to October 31, 2001 which should have been adjudicated only. The Tribunal has exceeded to its jurisdiction in the absence of any appeal by the Commissioner of Trade Tax in recording the findings that the assessee had not manufactured glass bangles during the year under consideration and under the garb of manufacturing of bangles and sales of glasswares had been suppressed. In view of the above, the order of the Tribunal is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside. In the result, the revision is allowed. The order of the Tribunal dated October 18, 2010 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to decide the appeal of the assessee afresh on the issue involved in the appeal of the applicant only in accordance to law.