Judgment :- THANIKKACHALAM, J. The assessee is the petitioner herein. The assessee is a dealer in steel furniture and almirahs. The assessee reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 2, 32, 600 and Rs. 2, 32, 600 respectively in the return submitted for the years 1989-90. There was an inspection conducted by the Enforcement Wing on August 4, 1989, and the verification of the records received from the check-post resulted in detection of two sale bills with the same number as shown below : "Bill No. Name of the buyer Name of the Value and date Tvl. article sold (i) 43/7-7-89 K. Rajan, Madurai-1 Steel stool Rs. 48.96 (ii) 43/7-7-89 Sivakami Corporation, Steel almirah Rs. 4, 243.20" * Mayiladuthurai. The final bill was available with the assessee and the second bill was received from the check-post. According to the assessing officer, two bills with the same number for two different sales indicated the maintenance of two sets of bill books and only the sales in bill book with bill No. 43 in item (i) above, were brought to accounts. According to the assessee the alleged suppression alone or the sale price noted in the sale bill only could be taken as suppression. However, the authorities below came to the conclusion that the assessee maintained two sets of bill books and the sales in the bill book with the sale bill No. 43, dated July 7, 1989 for Rs. 4, 243 were not brought to the regular accounts maintained by the assessee. Thus the assessing authorities estimated the suppressed turnover at Rs. 1, 67, 700. The estimated suppression of sale at Rs. 1, 67, 700 was confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal. Aggrieved, the assessee is in revision before this Court. This bill No. 43, dated July 7, 1989 was issued to Tvl. Sivagami Corporation, Mayiladuthurai. According to the department, since the bill No. is 43, there have been earlier 42 sale instances and on the basis of this bill, multiplying Rs. 4, 243 x 42 the department arrived at the figure of Rs. 1, 67, 700. Actual suppression of sale was not disclosed in the accounts maintained by the assessee. In the absence of accounts recorded and in the event of sale outside the books, the suppressed turnover was estimated and addition was made to the extent of Rs. 1, 67, 700. 1, 67, 700. Actual suppression of sale was not disclosed in the accounts maintained by the assessee. In the absence of accounts recorded and in the event of sale outside the books, the suppressed turnover was estimated and addition was made to the extent of Rs. 1, 67, 700. It is not the case of the assessee that inasmuch as there is an account book recording the turnover of Rs. 2, 34, 645 the abovesaid estimated sales turnover of Rs. 1, 67, 700 is reflected in Rs. 2, 34, 645. In the absence of any cogent evidence on the side of the assessee to prove its case the estimate of suppressed turnover arrived at by the authorities below appears to be in order. Even at the stage of second appeal, the Tribunal considering the facts arising on this aspect, did not want to interfere with this matter. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that on the basis of one bill, it would not be justifiable on the part of the assessing authorities to estimate the sale value for another 42 bills. In the absence of any materials on the side of the assessee to show the actual sale turnover, and proper explanation with regard to bill No. 43, we are unable to interfere with the estimation done by the authorities below in the matter of suppressed sale up to July 7, 1989. Since, there was wilful suppression on the part of the assessee, penalty under section12(3) of the Act was imposed. The suppression was established by the department. It was shown that the sale pertaining to bill No. 43 was outside the books. Therefore, when there is wilfulness on the part of the assessee in not recording the sale in the books of account, penalty under section 12(3) of the Act is exigible. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of penalty levied by the authorities below under section 12(3) of the Act. 3. There was an inspection conducted on August 4, 1989, resulted in detection of consumption of C.R. sheets over and above the consumption of C.R. sheets estimated for production of steel almirah. The quantity of C.R. sheets that should have been consumed in the manufacture of steel almirah, table and steel, were not brought into the accounts. Such suppressed quantity of C.R. sheets was found at 851.800 kgs. The quantity of C.R. sheets that should have been consumed in the manufacture of steel almirah, table and steel, were not brought into the accounts. Such suppressed quantity of C.R. sheets was found at 851.800 kgs. This was arrived at by the assessing officer after taking into consideration the purchase of C.R. sheets, the quantity that should have been taken for production of various kinds and sizes of almirahs and the physical stock of C.R. sheets available. 4. Again there was an inspection on December 5, 1989. On comparison of the physical stock of C.R. sheets with reference to the purchases of C.R. sheets, the C.R. sheets that should have been token for production of steel almirah revealed a deficit stock of 557.300 kgs. of C.R. sheets. The sale value of almirahs that would have been manufactured out of the above two differences, was estimated at Rs. 28, 350 and Rs. 18, 900 on the basis that the assessee would have consumed 40 kgs. of C.R. sheets to manufacture 61/2 almirah. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner deleted the suppression of sales estimated on the above basis and also the purchase turnover of C.R. sheets, estimated at Rs. 12, 777. This was done on the ground that the estimation was not based on any actual experiment or data and that the weight of C.R. sheets would vary and every sheet would not have been on the same weight. The quantity of C.R. sheets consumed in the manufacture of almirah as found by the assessing officer was only on the basis of the estimate. According to the department, this was done on the basis of the details available in the accounts and the details famished by the assessee on August 4, 1989. The assessee also did not produce any evidence to show what should have been the actual quantity of C.R. sheets required for the manufacture of a 61/2 almirah. However, the Tribunal on appeal, following the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. H. M. Esufali H. M. Abdulali came to the conclusion that the estimate made by the assessing officer on this aspect is in order. Accordingly suppression of sales amounting to Rs. 28, 350 and Rs. 18, 900 and purchases amounting to Rs. 12, 777 were restored by the Tribunal. 5. Accordingly suppression of sales amounting to Rs. 28, 350 and Rs. 18, 900 and purchases amounting to Rs. 12, 777 were restored by the Tribunal. 5. Before us, the learned counsel appearing for the assessee, submitted that when addition was made on the suppression found on the excessive Stock found at the time of inspection on August 4, 1989, further addition need not be made on the suppression found on the deficit stock found at the time of inspection on December 5, 1989. It remains to be seen that on August 4, 1989 when inspection was made, suppression was found with regard to excessive stock. So also when inspection was made on December 5, 1989 suppression was found with regard to deficit stock. These are all the suppressions made by the assessee outside the books of accounts. It is also to be noted that Rs. 1, 67, 700 was added on the basis of estimate up to July 7, 1989, and thereafter the second addition on the basis of the excess stock was made on the basis of the inspection made on August 4, 1989. The third addition was made on the basis of deficit stock found as a result of the inspection conducted on December 5, 1989. Therefore in one year these three additions were made for different periods. Therefore, it cannot be said that two additions were made in one assessment year. In fact, two additions were made not with regard to the same item of suppression. There is no evidence on record to clarify the stock position found as on August 4, 1989 and December 5, 1989. In the absence of any materials to support the submission made by the assessee that two additions should not be made, the same cannot be accepted. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion the suppression of sales, amounting to Rs. 28, 350 and Rs. 18, 900 and purchases amounting to Rs. 12, 777 as restored by the Tribunal, appears to be in order. Accordingly, we are not inclined to interfere with the same. Ten per cent addition made further on the turnover as per accounts was deleted by the Tribunal. This appears to be a second addition. Therefore, the Tribunal did not want to restore this addition of Rs. 23, 464. 12, 777 as restored by the Tribunal, appears to be in order. Accordingly, we are not inclined to interfere with the same. Ten per cent addition made further on the turnover as per accounts was deleted by the Tribunal. This appears to be a second addition. Therefore, the Tribunal did not want to restore this addition of Rs. 23, 464. Considering the reasons given by the Tribunal for not restoring this amount, we are also of the opinion that addition of Rs. 23, 464 cannot be made. 6. On going through the records, we found that the assessee reported a turnover of Rs. 2, 32, 600 in the concerned assessment year. The additions sustained by the Tribunal approximately come to Rs. 2, 27, 727 plus the penalty of Rs. 515 under section12(3) of the Act. This would go to show that for all the irregularities committed by the assessee in maintaining the accounts, the addition was made, by adding along with the reported turnover 100 per cent more. We consider this addition cannot be said to be unreasonable on the facts available on record. In that view of the matter, this tax case (revision) is dismissed. No costs.