Judgment :- JANARTHANAM, J. This revision, at the instance of the Revenue, is directed against the order dated November 29, 1990 of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Madras-104 (for short, "the Tribunal") and made in T.A. No. 345 of 1988 relating to the assessment year 1980-8.1 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short, "the CST Act"). 2. This revision is relatable to the imposition of penalty upon the assessee-Tvl. E.I.D. Parry (India) Limited, quantified in a sum of Rs. 53, 424 being the amount representing one and half tires the tax due on an alleged suppression of turnover to the tune of Rs. 3, 56, 161 levied under section 12(5)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 read with section9(2A) of the CST Act, as imposed by the Assistant Commissioner (C.T.), Central Assessment Circle-I and confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner (C.T.), Madras North Division and set aside by the Tribunal. 3. From the pith and submissions of Mr. K. Elango, learned Government Advocate representing the Revenue, and Mr. Inbarajan, representing the assessee-company, the point that arises for consideration is as to whether the order of the Tribunal in setting aside the imposition of penalty, as imposed by the assessing officer and confirmed by the first appellate authority, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, is sustainable in law ? 4. It appears that the entirety of the books of accounts, inclusive of form statement on being produced have been verified by the assessing officer. On such verification, the assessing officer himself had stated in the order of assessment that the turnover reported is in accordance with the books of accounts except a small variation of Rs. 3 which is due to rounding off the figures, which obviously had been done by the salient provisions adumbrated under section9-B of the CST Act. Having stated so, he also stated that there appears to be a suppression of turnover in a sum of Rs. 3, 56, 161, which the assessee-company was unable to reconcile, despite the issuance of a show cause notice in that regard. By a jugglery of figures either by way of addition or subtraction the assessing officer found a suppression of sales in a sum of Rs. 3, 56, 161. 5. When we confronted Mr. 3, 56, 161, which the assessee-company was unable to reconcile, despite the issuance of a show cause notice in that regard. By a jugglery of figures either by way of addition or subtraction the assessing officer found a suppression of sales in a sum of Rs. 3, 56, 161. 5. When we confronted Mr. K. Elango, learned Government Advocate representing the Revenue, as to how such suppressed sales in a sum of Rs. 3, 56, 161 was arrived at by the assessing officer, he became speechless in making any answer in that regard. However, he sought the assistance of the Assistant Commissioner (C.T.), Central Assessment Circle-I, who is bodily present in court to come to his rescue in explaining how this suppression of turnover in a sum of Rs. 3, 56, 161 MM 9 was arrived at by the assessing officer. The officer so present in court, openly made an admission before us that some mistake had been committed by the then Assistant Commissioner-assessing officer in coming to the conclusion that a suppression of sales turnover in a sum of Rs. 3, 56, 161 was arrived at. 6. This apart, we are of the view that when especially the assessing officer had stated in the prior portion of the assessment order that the reported turnover of the assessee-company tallies with the books of accounts, except a small variation of Rs. 3, which is due to rounding off the figures, there cannot be any suppression of sales turnover. 7. In this view of the matter, the imposition of penalty upon the assessee-company is not at all justifiable in law. The Tribunal did not at all assign this sort of a reasoning, while setting aside the penalty, as had been imposed upon the assessee-company by the assessing officer and laterly confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner (C.T.), Madras North Division. Whatever it is, the decision of the Tribunal as relatable to the setting aside of the penalty imposed upon the assessee-company cannot at all be interfered with, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. This point is answered accordingly. 8. In fine, the revision is dismissed with costs.