Judgment :- V. RAMASWAMI, J. In these two case while revising the assessment of the dealer under s. 16, the AO also levied penalty under S. 16(2). The Tribunal set aside the order of penalty while confirming the reassessment order in one case and reducing the escaped turnover in the other case on the ground that there was no specific finding of wilful non-disclosure of the turnover as required under S. 16(2) of the Act. These revision petitions have been filed challenging only that portion of the order of the Tribunal relating to the setting aside the order of penalty. The Tribunal is not correct in stating that the AO had not given a finding of wilful non-disclosure of the taxable turnover. In fact, the AO, after discussing the anamath slips which showed sales, clearly stated that the penalty is levied for proved suppression. The use of word "suppression" shows that what the AO found was wilful non-disclosure. If it was not a wilful non-disclosure, the AO would have stated as merely omissions. The use of the word "suppression" clearly brings out the wilful nature of the non-disclosure and, therefore, the Tribunal was not right in setting aside the penalty mere on the ground that there was no finding of wilful non-disclosure. 2. These two revision cases are accordingly allowed and the order of the Tribunal in so far as it related to the penalty is set aside. The Revenue will be entitled to its costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 150 in each.