Satish Chandra, C.J.
1. The question referred for our opinion is whether on the facts and circumstances of this case the accounts books of the assessee were validly rejected. From the order passed by the revising authority it appears that the accounts books of the assessee were rejected because the sales were written by the assessee after counting the till, separate cash memos were not issued in respect of retail sales and there was a difference in the book and returned versions of the turnover. In the statement of the case the revising authority has pointed out that there was no material in support of the findings that the sales were written after counting the till or that there was any difference in the book and returned versions of the turnover. Learned standing counsel has not been able to point out anything on the record to sustain these findings. These findings were also not supported by any finding recorded by the assessing authority or the appellate authority. The only reason which survives is that separate cash memos were not issued in respect of retail sales. From the statement of the case it appears that the practice adopted by the assessee was that in respect of very petty sales he did not issue separate cash memos, but at the end of the day passed a consolidated cash memo for all the petty sales. From this no adverse inference against the veracity of the accounts maintained by the assessee could be drawn. Apparently the assessee adopted this procedure in order to tally the sales of the whole day with his books of account. The passing of a consolidated cash memo for all the petty sales of the day could not help the assessee in avoiding there petty sales from tax. We are hence satisfied that rejection of the account books of the assessee was based on no reasonable ground.
2. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in the negative in favour of the assessee and against the department. The assessee will be entitled to his costs which are assessed at Rs. 200 one set.