“the assessing authority did find fault with the assessee for non production of documets evidencing that he did not conduct any business in textiles and readymade garments at the business premises where inspection was conducted by the Intelligence Officer. He had also relied on the signature of Shanu Abbas available on the SIR. It is significant to note that the appellant had specifically contended that Shanu Abbas was not related to him. If, in fact, the appellant had conducted business at the place of inspection, the assessing authority could have gathered details of such business if he had taken some effor for that purpose. However, ehe simply relied on the failure on the part of the effor for the purpose. However, he simply relied on the failure on the part of the assessee to adduce negative evidence in order to reach a positive finding. According to us, the course adopted by the assessing authority is totally unacceptable especially in view of the specific contention taken by the appellant that he did not conduct the disputed business and the signatory to the SIR was not his relative. It appears, simply by way of relying on the penalty order, the assessing authority was pleased to pass an order of assessment by way of estimating the taxable turnover of the appellant on the basis of the details collected by the Intelligence Officer at the time of inspection. The course adopted by the assessing authority is totally against the ratio set up in Yeses International's case. So, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order of assessment with a direction to the assessing authority to conduct fresh enquiry and to pass appropriate order on the basis of materials collected by him. If requested by the appellant, copy of the two note books alleged to have been seized from the place of business shall also be furnished to him.”
