JUDGMENT OM PRAKASH, C.J. – Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The assessee is engaged in the business of hardware and paints. Inspection on the business premises of the assessee was conducted on March 5, 1988 and then stock variation to the extent of Rs. 50,000 was found. For that reason, the assessing officer estimated the turnover by adding 20 per cent to the taxable turnover. 3. On appeal the appellate authority reduced the estimated turnover to three times of the suppressed turnover. 4. By the order of the appellate authority, both the assessee as well as the Revenue felt aggrieved and thus both filed appeals. Whereas, the Appellate Tribunal accepted the appeal of the Revenue, it dismissed the appeal of the assessee and hence two T.R.Cs. have been filed before this Court by the assessee. Involving common controversy, both the T.R.Cs. are taken up together for disposal. 5. The Appellate Tribunal, to reverse the order of the first appellate authority, found that a pattern of suppression was established. It is not disputed that inspection was made on a single day, viz., March 5, 1988 when stock variation to the extent of Rs. 50,000 was found. No other inspection was made. We are unable to understand as to how the pattern of suppression could be established by a single inspection. This finding of the Appellate Tribunal is wholly contrary to law. This is a case where the pattern of suppression is not established. The total turnover of the assessee is of the magnitude of Rs. 48,32,448. Stock variation is only to the tune of Rs. 50,000 and that too on a single date, viz., March 5, 1988. Considering these facts, the appellate authority reduced the estimated turnover to three times of the suppressed turnover. To reverse the order of the appellate authority, the Appellate Tribunal should have given cogent reasons. The order of the first appellate authority should not be reversed lightly. We do not see any good reasons to reverse the order of the first appellate authority. Rather the order of the Appellate Tribunal is misconceived and wholly unsupported by the facts. In the result, both the T.R.Cs. succeed and are allowed. The order of the first appellate authority should not be reversed lightly. We do not see any good reasons to reverse the order of the first appellate authority. Rather the order of the Appellate Tribunal is misconceived and wholly unsupported by the facts. In the result, both the T.R.Cs. succeed and are allowed. The order of the Appellate Tribunal dated April 18, 1996 is set aside and the order of the first appellate authority, in so far as it estimated the turnover at three times of the suppressed turnover, is restored. Order on C.M.P. No. 3202 of 1997 in T.R.C. No. 200 of 1997 dismissed. Petitions allowed.