Judgment :- THANIKKACHALAM, J. These revisions filed by the assessee relate to the assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83. The petitioner Mr. T. Singaravelu is a dealer in tread rubber. For the assessment year 1981-82, the taxable turnover was determined at Rs. 2, 51, 280 and Rs. 4, 671 respectively by the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer in his order dated July 26, 1982. The assessment was made on the basis of the records secured during the inspection of the place of business of the assessee. The Enforcement Wing, on October 13, 1982, made inspection and reassessment was made on an escaped turnover of Rs. 3, 11, 134 and levied tax of 9 per cent on this entire escaped turnover. Penalty was levied at Rs. 42, 003 calculating at 50 per cent of the tax due on the escaped turnover. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed the order passed by the assessing officer. The assessee filed a further appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal determined the escaped turnover as Rs. 1, 55, 567 taxable at 9 per cent. Penalty was fixed at Rs. 7, 000 calculating at 50 per cent of the tax due on the actual suppression sustained by the Tribunal. 2. For the assessment year 1982-83, the assessee returned a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 1, 49, 039.95 and Rs. 174 respectively. Basing on the records secured on inspection of the place of business of the assessee, the assessing officer determined the total and taxable turnover at Rs. 12, 11, 967 and Rs. 10, 63, 107 respectively. The assessing officer also levied penalty of Rs. 1, 13, 062 under section12(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in respect of the assessment made by the assessing officer as well as the penalty levied by him. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed the order passed by the assessing officer on both these aspects. Thereafter, the assessee filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal determined the taxable suppression turnover as Rs. 8, 37, 502. The penalty was fixed at 50 per cent of the tax due on the actual suppression of Rs. 8, 37, 502. The penalty was therefore reduced and was re-fixed at Rs. 37, 687. 3. Thereafter, the assessee filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal determined the taxable suppression turnover as Rs. 8, 37, 502. The penalty was fixed at 50 per cent of the tax due on the actual suppression of Rs. 8, 37, 502. The penalty was therefore reduced and was re-fixed at Rs. 37, 687. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee is in revisions before this Court in respect of both the assessment years under consideration. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the Tribunal assumed suppression with reference to the brought forward entries available with the records secured and all such brought forward entries do not commence from April 1, 1982 but on various dates from April 1, 1982. According to the learned counsel for the assessee, since there is no positive evidence to establish that there was actual suppression, levy of penalty under section12(3) of the Act is not sustainable. In the alternative, he has submitted that the quantum of penalty is excessive. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader for Taxes, while supporting the order passed by the Tribunal in respect of both the assessment years under consideration submitted that since the assessee suppressed the sales turnover, the department is correct in estimating the sales turnover and levying penalty under section12(3) of the Act. The sales turnover was determined on the basis of the materials recovered during inspection of the Enforcement Wing. The assessee has not produced any account books to controvert the estimate made by the assessing authority. It was submitted that in the absence of any plausible evidence on the side of the assessee, it is not possible to contend that the estimate made by the assessing authority and confirmed by the Tribunal, was incorrect. So also, it was submitted that inasmuch as the assessee suppressed the turnover, penalty is exigible in both the assessment orders under consideration. 5. We have heard the rival submissions. The fact remains that there was suppression of sales turnover for the assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83 which are based on the materials recovered during inspection conducted by the Enforcement Wing in the place of business of the assessee. The assessing authority estimated the sales turnover for both the assessment years under consideration. Since there was suppression of sales turnover, penalty was levied at 150 per cent of the tax due on actual sales omission. The assessing authority estimated the sales turnover for both the assessment years under consideration. Since there was suppression of sales turnover, penalty was levied at 150 per cent of the tax due on actual sales omission. However, on appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed the assessment made by the assessing officer as well as the penalty levied by him. Taking into consideration the fact that there is no evidence for the assumption of suppression with reference to the brought forward entries available in the records secured and all such brought forward entries do not commence from April 1, 1982, but on various dates from April 1, 1982 the Tribunal sustained the actual suppression. Thus, the Tribunal came to its conclusion that the estimate made by the assessing authorities, is based upon the brought forward entries which do not relate to a particular date. Relief was accordingly granted to the assessee by sustaining the actual suppressed turnovers. In that view of the matter the turnovers determined by the authorities below, were modified and reliefs were granted. On the basis of the modified turnover, penalty was also modified and it was levied to a lesser extent of Rs. 7, 000, than what were fixed by the assessing authority. 6. We consider that the reason given by the Tribunal for reducing the suppressed turnovers as well as the penalty, appears to be an acceptable one. Accordingly, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal in respect of fixing the turnover for both the assessment years under consideration and the reduction of penalty. We consider that the estimate made by the Tribunal in respect of the suppressed turnover and the fixing of penalty, appears to be more reasonable, warranting no interference by this Court. Accordingly, both the Revisions are dismissed. No order as to costs.