Judgment :- In all these tax revision cases the department is the petitioner. The assessee is a dealer in brasswares and stainless steelwares of Thanjavur. For the assessment year 1980-81, the assessee reported a taxable turnover of Rs. 5, 32, 651.13. For the defects and omissions as detailed in the assessment order, the assessing officer has rejected the accounts of the assessee and determined the total and taxable turnover of the assessee at Rs. 32, 23, 671 and Rs. 27, 40, 507 respectively. The assessing officer also levied a penalty of Rs. 62, 628 under section12(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act for the wilful omission noticed in the accounts. Corresponding surcharge and additional sales tax also were imposed by the assessing officer separately. Disputing the additions of Rs. 9, 95, 227 at 10 per cent, Rs. 12, 09, 492 at 4 per cent and the penalty of Rs. 62, 628 the assessee filed an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who modified the assessment and refixed the taxable turnover at Rs. 15, 32, 151 (Rs. 6, 48, 527 at 10 per cent and Rs. 8, 83, 624 at 4 per cent) and the penalty at Rs. 3, 165. The additional sales tax was fixed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner at Rs. 10, 725. Aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner the assessee preferred a second appeal disputing the addition of Rs. 5, 92, 440 at 10 per cent, Rs. 4, 00, 044 at 4 per cent and penalty of Rs. 3, 165. The department filed an enhancement petition praying enhancement of the taxable turnover to Rs. 10, 51, 314 under 10 per cent and Rs. 15, 42, 480 under 4 per cent and the penalty to Rs. 61, 194. The details of Rs. 5, 92, 440 taxable under 4 per cent are as under : Rs. (a) Sales suppressions of stainless steelwares 5, 000 as per inspection on September 29, 1980.(b) Sales suppression of stainless steelwares 50, 142 as per inspection on May 9, 1980. (c) Sales suppression as per inspection on 2, 68, 649 December 24, 1980. (d) Addition for probable omission 2, 68, 649 5, 92, 440 Addition of turnover of Rs. 5, 000 as per inspection on September 29, 1980 : towards sales suppression of stainless steelwares : According to the assessing officer, the assessee purchased 50 kgs. (c) Sales suppression as per inspection on 2, 68, 649 December 24, 1980. (d) Addition for probable omission 2, 68, 649 5, 92, 440 Addition of turnover of Rs. 5, 000 as per inspection on September 29, 1980 : towards sales suppression of stainless steelwares : According to the assessing officer, the assessee purchased 50 kgs. of stainless steelwares worth Rs. 5, 000 at Madras without bills and booked them to Tanjore through railway parcel. On arrival of the goods at the place of business, the officers of the Enforcement Wing found that the assessee was not in possession of any bill or delivery note. According to the assessee, the purchase bill was received by post subsequently and duly entered in the accounts. At the time of inspection the officers found that the goods were not supported by any bill or delivery note. The assessee subsequently obtained the invoice by post and produced the same. Though it was not immediately posted in the book, according to the assessee, it was entered in the book subsequently. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner sustained the assessment on this turnover on the ground that the assessees have failed to account for the railway receipts. The fact remains that soon after the arrival of the goods the officers inspected the business premises. Without giving any further opportunity to the assessee to account for the arrival of the goods, the addition was made. Considering the facts that the assessee had produced the bill subsequently and the assessee was not given an opportunity to explain the Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 5, 000. The reason given by the Tribunal for deleting this addition appears to be an acceptable one. According, we are not inclined to interfere with the same. 2. Sales suppression of stainless steelwares as per inspection on May 9, 1980 - Rs. 50, 142 : The addition of Rs. 50, 142 consists the following items : Rs. (i) Overall discrepancy of 401.980 kgs. stainless steelwares 36, 178 (ii) Stainless steel piece rate articles unaccounted stock 2, 610 (iii) Sales suppression as per D7 records slip No. 8 9, 754 (iv) Sales suppression as per D7 records slip No. 10 1, 600 50, 142 According to the assessee, the inspecting officers have not taken into account the purchase of 350.950 kgs. stainless steelwares 36, 178 (ii) Stainless steel piece rate articles unaccounted stock 2, 610 (iii) Sales suppression as per D7 records slip No. 8 9, 754 (iv) Sales suppression as per D7 records slip No. 10 1, 600 50, 142 According to the assessee, the inspecting officers have not taken into account the purchase of 350.950 kgs. of stainless steelwares bought from M/s. Rupa Steel Centre, Madras as per bill No. 30 dated May 6, 1980. The assessee submitted that the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Trichy, has accepted the contention of the assessee in his R.P. 14/81 dated March 11, 1981 filed by the assessee against the levy of compounding fee. Thus the purchase bill produced by the assessee was accepted by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Trichy. On the basis of the abovesaid finding the Tribunal held that the contention put forward by the assessee cannot be rejected. The Tribunal further pointed out that if the quantity involved in the bill is taken into account the difference if any would be only 51.030 kgs. which in the opinion of the Tribunal is very negligible considering the large scale purchase and sale effected by the assessee. Accordingly, the Tribunal accepted the explanation offered by the assessee in the matter of deleting the addition of Rs. 36, 178. 3. The Tribunal considered that the addition of turnover of Rs. 2, 610, Rs. 9, 754 and Rs. 1, 600 were not properly explained by the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal does not want to disturb the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in confirming these additions. For the source reason we do not want to interfere with the same. 4. The sales suppressions as per inspection conducted on December 24, 1980, i.e., Rs. 2, 68, 649 and addition for probable omission Rs. 2, 68, 649 : The above disputed turnover comprises of the following details : Rs. (i) Sales suppression of stainless steel articles 6, 000 (ii) Sales suppression of piece rate items 1, 249 (iii) Sales effected from unregistered place of 2, 61, 400 business treated as suppression According to the Tribunal, the dispute with regard to the first two items were not seriously argued on behalf of the assessee. Further, it was pointed out that the assessee has no evidence to prove that these items are not really suppressions and have been accounted for in the accounts. Further, it was pointed out that the assessee has no evidence to prove that these items are not really suppressions and have been accounted for in the accounts. Therefore, the sales of Rs. 6, 000 and Rs. 1, 249 are confirmed and treated as sales suppressions by the Tribunal. But, however, considering the overall picture the Tribunal thought fit to make an addition of Rs. 3, 000 on the abovesaid two heads, which, according to the Tribunal would meet the ends of justice. We have also heard learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) on this issue and we have seen the reasons given by the Tribunal for sustaining the addition of Rs. 3, 000 under the abovesaid two heads. On considering the submission by learned Additional Government Pleader and after going through the reasons given by the Tribunal, we are of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal in restricting to Rs. 3, 000. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the Tribunal on this item. 5. The next item of dispute relates to the sales effected from unregistered places of business to the tune of Rs. 2, 61, 400 under 10 per cent category. According to the assessing officer, the assessee has effected sales from unregistered godowns and the assessee had not obtained any licence to store and sell goods from those places. The assessing officer, therefore treated the stocks kept in those unregistered places as unaccounted stocks and treated them as suppressions. The assessing officer also treated the deficit stocks found in the registered place of business as suppressions. On appeal the Tribunal considered that simply because the goods were stored in an unregistered place, that could not amount to suppression of sale. The Tribunal also noted the fact that the unregistered place is another part of the same building. Considering all these aspects the Tribunal was of the view that no addition can be made on the suppression of sale of Rs. 2, 61, 400 relating to the goods stored in the unregistered place. So also the Tribunal deleted the equal addition of Rs. 2, 61, 400 made by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The department filed an enhancement petition before the Tribunal for the restoration of the addition relating to the actual suppression of Rs. 2, 61, 400 and also for the equal addition towards suppression made. So also the Tribunal deleted the equal addition of Rs. 2, 61, 400 made by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The department filed an enhancement petition before the Tribunal for the restoration of the addition relating to the actual suppression of Rs. 2, 61, 400 and also for the equal addition towards suppression made. 6. The assessee's main contention was that the discrepancies in stock noticed exist because of the fact that the stock taken from the unregistered godown should also be considered. Arriving at the overall picture the stock available in the unregistered godown should also come from the admitted purchases of the assessee. Therefore, it was submitted that it is not proper to treat them as unaccounted purchase. They are purchases outside the account but stored in the godown. Therefore, it was submitted that it is incorrect to admit that these stocks are outside the accounts, and therefore, they are suppressions. 7. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner pointed out that no evidence was produced to show that the unregistered godown was acquired 20 says ago. Therefore, the two inspections conducted by the Enforcement Wing make the accounts liable for rejection, according to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner further pointed out that the discrepancies noticed in various goods at various places showed that the deficiency is alarming and the plea of the assessee that the stocks available in the godown should be taken into account is not acceptable. He further pointed out that even if the stocks are taken into account, there are still deficiencies in almost all categories of goods. According to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the plea of the assessee to consider the stock discrepancies after including the stock in the unregistered godown in not acceptable though there is some force in his argument that the resultant deficiencies also revealed that there are purchase and sales remissions. In fact, there is no stock account maintained by the assessee. The stock accounts in unregistered godown have been from the admitted accounts. Therefore, there is no record to support the claim made by the assessee. It was submitted that no estimation is called for since there was no proved suppression. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner requested the departmental representative to check and report some of the entries in slips 1 and 4 claimed to be accounted for in the books of account. Therefore, there is no record to support the claim made by the assessee. It was submitted that no estimation is called for since there was no proved suppression. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner requested the departmental representative to check and report some of the entries in slips 1 and 4 claimed to be accounted for in the books of account. The department representative has filed a report stating that slip No. 1 relates to the accounts which are outstanding and all the persons mentioned in the slip have regular accounts with the assessee, and, they are accounted for to the tune of Rs. 13, 500. For these reasons the Appellate Assistant Commissioner sustained the addition of Rs. 2, 61, 400. Since the suppression was proved, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner further made an equal addition of Rs. 2, 61, 400. 8. The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 2.61, 400 and also the equal addition of Rs. 2, 61, 400 made for suppression. As against the order passed by the Tribunal for deleting both these additions an enhancement petition was filed. Learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) submitted that the Tribunal was not correct in deleting both these additions. According to learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) the transactions relating to Rs. 2, 61, 400 do not find a place in the books of accounts. Though the Tribunal pointed out that these sales amounting to Rs. 2, 61, 400 finds a place in the books, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on verification of the account books pointed out that the version put forward by the assessee on this aspect is not correct. The Tribunal deleted this addition on the ground that these sales were found in the stock books and storing those goods in the unregistered godown is merely a procedural irregularity. It remains to be seen that it is for the assessee to prove that even through these goods are stored in an unregistered godown, the sales turnover or the stocks found in the godown are already entered in the account books. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner in his order pointed out that the assessee had not proved that these stocks are found in the account books. Two inspections were conducted by the Enforcement Wing. In respect of all the stocks available in the godown there were discrepancies in maintaining the accounts. Admittedly the assessee is not maintaining stock account. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner in his order pointed out that the assessee had not proved that these stocks are found in the account books. Two inspections were conducted by the Enforcement Wing. In respect of all the stocks available in the godown there were discrepancies in maintaining the accounts. Admittedly the assessee is not maintaining stock account. Unless the assessee maintains stock accounts it is not possible for the assessee to submit that the stocks found in the unregistered godown are entered in the account books. Therefore, the pleas put forward by the assessee are not supported by records. No doubt, in the matter of estimation the department would have estimated on a high side. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner also called for a report from the departmental representative after checking the entries in some of the slips. The report filed by the departmental representative would go to show that the entire transactions found in the slips are not proved to the satisfaction of the department. Thus, without verifying all these facts, the Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 2, 61, 400 taxable at 10 per cent. Admittedly the assessee is not maintaining stock account. Therefore, whatever might be the reasons offered by the assessee in explaining with regard to the stock found in the unregistered godown cannot be accepted in toto. After verification of the stock account and other records the Appellate Assistant Commissioner made an addition of Rs. 2, 61, 400. Considering the reasons given by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in his order in making the addition of Rs. 2, 61, 400 we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was not correct in deleting the same without assigning proper reasons and without verifying the records on this aspect. Accordingly, we restore the addition of Rs. 2, 61, 400 taxable 10 per cent. However, we are not restoring the equal addition of Rs. 2, 61, 400 made by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. To this extent the order passed by the Tribunal in deleting the addition of Rs. 2, 61, 400 stands set aside. Accordingly the revision filed by the department against the order passed by the Tribunal in dismissing the enhancement petition stands dismissed. 9. There is another disputed turnover of Rs. 4, 00, 044 given in the following manner : Rs. (a) Suppression fixed as per inspection on May 9, 1980 ... 2, 61, 400 stands set aside. Accordingly the revision filed by the department against the order passed by the Tribunal in dismissing the enhancement petition stands dismissed. 9. There is another disputed turnover of Rs. 4, 00, 044 given in the following manner : Rs. (a) Suppression fixed as per inspection on May 9, 1980 ... 26, 820 (b) Suppression as per inspection on December 24, 1980 ... 1, 86, 612 (c) Addition for probable omission ... 1, 86, 612 4, 00, 044 10. Suppression as per inspection on May 9, 1980 - Rs. 26, 820 : This disputed turnover represents stock difference noticed during inspection on May 9, 1980 to the extent of 535 kgs. in brasswares and 85 kgs. in aluminiumwares, scrap metals, etc. According to the assessee, the department simply estimated the weights of various items of goods without actual weighment and the sales had been arrived at by an approximate average rate of sale. But, however, the Tribunal pointed out that the deficit noted is excessive. The Tribunal further pointed out that no explanation for the transaction found in the slip was offered by the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal confirmed the addition of Rs. 26, 820 taxable at 4 per cent. Even before us no further evidence was produced to explain the deficit found. In the absence of explanation on the side of the assessee we see no reason to interfere with the addition made by the Tribunal on this item of turnover. 11. Suppression of Rs. 1, 86, 612 and addition for probable omission - Rs. 1, 86, 612 : The assessing officer found that the assessee kept stocks in various unregistered places to the tune of Rs. 1, 86, 612. The assessing officer treated the goods kept there as unaccounted sales. The deficit stock found in the place of business was treated as suppression. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner after considering that the explanation offered by the assessee was not supported by documents and since the deficit stock is of a great magnitude sustained the addition of Rs. 1, 86, 612 as suppressed turnover and also made an equal addition for the said suppression. The Tribunal for the reasons set out in deleting the addition of Rs. 2, 61, 400 deleted this addition of Rs. 1, 86, 612. While we are restoring the addition of Rs. 1, 86, 612 as suppressed turnover and also made an equal addition for the said suppression. The Tribunal for the reasons set out in deleting the addition of Rs. 2, 61, 400 deleted this addition of Rs. 1, 86, 612. While we are restoring the addition of Rs. 2, 61, 400 we have enumerated our reasons on the basis of the same reason and in the absence of any evidence on the side of the assessee to explain the suppression, we restore the addition of Rs. 1, 86, 612 as sustained by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. However, we are not restoring the equal addition of Rs. 1, 86, 612 as sustained by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Here also the department filed an enhancement petition for restoration of the addition of Rs. 1, 86, 612 and the equal addition of Rs. 1, 86, 612 for suppression. Thus, the order passed by the Tribunal in deleting the addition of Rs. 1, 86, 612 stands set aside and only the actual suppression of Rs. 1, 86, 612 stands restored. 12. Thus we sustain the additions of Rs. 2, 61, 400 and Rs. 1, 86, 612 totalling to Rs. 4, 48, 012 (Rs. 2, 61, 400 taxable at 10 per cent and Rs. 1, 86, 612 taxable at 4 per cent). 13. Even though we sustained the addition of Rs. 4, 48, 012, we are not correspondingly increasing the penalty for suppression. Therefore, the penalty of Rs. 2, 000 sustained by the Tribunal is not disturbed. 14. Consequently the additional sales tax has got to be worked out. 15. In the result T.C. (R) No. 1640 of 1984 stands allowed to the abovesaid extent. T.C. (R) No. 1643 of 1984 stands dismissed. T.C. (R) No. 1641 of 1984 stands allowed to the extent of levy of additional tax to be re-worked in consequence of the order passed by us in T.C. (R) No. 1640 of 1984.