Judgment :- ABDUL HADI, J. These tax revision cases preferred by the assessees are against the common order dated February 21, 1991 of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench) at Madras in three appeals before it, relating to three assessment years 1986-87, 1987-88 and 1988-89. The assessees are dealers in jewellery. The place of their business was inspected on August 31, 1988 and on the basis of the incriminating documents recovered and the consequent inference that one goldsmith S. L. Rajaprathinithi was executing orders of the assessee's customers, the assessing officer revised the assessment already made for the years 1986-87 and 1987-88 under section16 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, and made fresh assessment for the year 1988-89 under section12 of the said Act. For the assessment year 1986-87 the suppression of turnover was found to be to the extent of Rs. 34, 800 and the assessing officer made four times addition to an extent of Rs. 1, 39, 200 and estimated the total suppression at Rs. 1, 74, 000. He also levied penalty of Rs. 3, 393. For the assessment year 1987-88, the suppression was found to be Rs. 48, 300 and making a similar four times addition, he arrived at the total suppression at Rs. 2, 41, 500. A penalty of Rs. 4, 710 also was levied. For the assessment year 1988-89 the suppression was found to be Rs. 33, 452. Again an addition to the extent of four times was made and the total suppression was arrived at Rs. 2, 92, 545. He also levied penalty to the extent of Rs. 5, 703. 2. The appeals preferred against the order of the assessing officer by the assessees, were also dismissed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. 3. The abovesaid second appeals filed by the assessees before the Tribunal were partly allowed, as follows : Instead of the abovesaid four times addition made, the Tribunal restricted it only to an equal addition towards actual suppression in all the three years and in respect of the assessment year 1988-89 alone, the penalty was partly deleted, in so far as it relates to stock discrepancy. 4. Aggrieved by the said common order of the Tribunal, the assessees have preferred these revisions. 4. Aggrieved by the said common order of the Tribunal, the assessees have preferred these revisions. All that the learned counsel for the petitioners could urge as an error of law in the abovesaid order of the Tribunal, its that the Tribunal had misdirected itself in overlooking the statement of S. L. Rajaprathinithi and discrediting the same without any valid reasons. But, we do not find any such misdirection by the Tribunal. The Tribunal observes as follows in paragraph 9 of its common order : "The contention of the appellants is that the recovered slips do not belong to the appellants and they belong only to Thiru S. L. Rajaprathinithi a goldsmith. It is seen from the statement given by one Thiru P. Subramaniam, authorised representative, that Thiru S. L. Rajaprathinithi, a goldsmith, who is having a workshop in the same place of business of the appellants doing labour work for monthly rent. Further enquiry made by the department with S. L. Rajaprathinithi revealed true colour of the transaction." Then it gives the relevant details as found from the recovered records and concludes thus : "These facts go to prove that the goldsmith, Thiru S. L. Rajaprathinithi, is employed by the appellants and their sister concern Tvl. A. R. C. Viswanathan and Company and the goldsmith has manufactured ornaments for labour. Since the goldsmith is working in the same place of business of the appellants and the way in which the D7 records were handed over by the appellants to the inspecting authorities clearly prove that the transactions relate to the appellants only. Being a goldsmith statutorily he has to maintain G.S. 13 register in the normal course of his business. Since it is proved that the goldsmith is doing labour work for the appellants it is obvious that the ornaments have been manufactured for labour only. Under these circumstances we have no hesitation to hold that the goldsmith is doing labour work only for the appellants and sister concern and not to outsiders and the goods manufactured relate to the appellants only." 5. Since thus the nexus between the abovesaid goldsmith and the assessee has been established, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners has no merit. We do not see any error of law in the order of the Tribunal and hence the revision petitions are not admitted, but dismissed.