authority. He found out the outer limit and the extent to which the quarrying operations can be carried out. He then found out that the quarrying was done not limited to this extent, but over and above it. Therefore, the difference was worked out and that is how he computed the profits that the assessee generated over above the limited quarrying operations. However, the mistake committed by him is pointed out by the tribunal. Such an order of the District Collector, seeking to recover the differential amount from the quarrying operations in addition to over and above the limit prescribed in the licence, has been passed only in the assessment year 1993-94. Therefore, such an order and passed in the case of the assessee in one assessment year cannot be the basis for prior years or subsequent years. The tribunal recorded a finding of fact that in the quantum appeals, it has confirmed the findings of the first appellate authority in toto. Thus, the estimation of turnover relevant to assessment year 1993-94 as well as business profits adopting flat rate for quantifying the profits cannot be a general formula and for all assessment years. The assessment year-wise incriminating material has not been indicated in the assessing officer's order. It is such a finding, which eventually led the tribunal to employ the words that there is no concrete or conclusive evidence. The tribunal did not insist, as is understood by Mr. Pinto, on such degree of proof. It said, in
