ORDER MRS. PRABHA SRIDEVAN, J. - The above tax case revision is directed against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Main Branch), Chennai, dated November 12, 1996 in T.A. No. 713 of 1995 for the assessment year 1992-93. The assessee is the petitioner herein. The relevant assessment year is 1992-93. The assessee is a dealer in bearings. Serval defects were found in the inspection conducted on August 17, 1992. It was found that the goods received from their other State branches from April 1, 1992 were not accounted for, purchases and sales registers were not maintained properly and form XII and form XXIV registers were also incomplete. For the defects noticed, a compounding fees of Rs. 1,000 was levied and collected. During the inspecting, certain slips relating to the transport of goods from Madras to Secundrabad and vice versa were recovered and it was found that the entire receipt of goods from the branch office at Secundrabad were not accounted for. This was treated as purchase suppression. Equal addition was imposed and penalty was also levied under section 12(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. An appeal was filed, where it was contended that there was no sales, but merely stock transfer from the branch officer and therefore, there was no justification in arriving at the conclusion that there was purchase suppression. The basis on which addition was made was also challenged as unwarranted and as also the levy of penalty. The appellate authority found from the records that the assessee had not maintained its accounts in the ordinary course of business and hence their returns could not be relied as true and correct. They suppressed the receipt of goods from their branch office during the assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93, which fact was admitted before the Inspecting Officer and subsequently denied. The dispute relating to equal addition was also rejected since it was a case not of stock difference, but suppression of the receipt of goods from Secundrabad and the levy of penalty was also justified. The Tribunal considered the matter in detail and modified and partly allowed the appeal. Against that, the present tax case (revision) is filed. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that there was no purchase, but mere transport of goods and when there was no purchase, there cannot be any addition. The Tribunal considered the matter in detail and modified and partly allowed the appeal. Against that, the present tax case (revision) is filed. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that there was no purchase, but mere transport of goods and when there was no purchase, there cannot be any addition. When there is no finding of evasion, penalty was also not warranted. The learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the goods relating to suppression is factual and there is no error in the factual findings recorded and there is no justification to interfere. The inspection was conducted on August 17, 1992. The defects relating to variation of stock and also purchase suppression relating to transport of goods from Chennai to Secundrabad branch and vice versa. The unaccounted receipt of goods from the branch was found to be clear purchase suppression to the tune of Rs. 1,64,000, for which an equal addition for probable omission was made at Rs. 1,64,000. Factually, it was found that the total receipt of goods from April 1, 1992 till the date of inspection valued at Rs. 1,64,000 were not accounted by the assessee and therefore, the assessee was not maintaining its accounts properly. It is also a case of habitual suppression since factually it was found that for the assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93 also, there was purchase suppression. It is on this ground that an equal addition was made for probable omission. However, the Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 32,800 towards gross profit at ten per cent and only sustained the actual suppression and the equal time addition. With regard to the levy of penalty at 150 per cent imposed by the assessing officer, it was sustained by the appellate authority. The Tribunal found that the suppression was not only admitted, but proved. But for the inspection, there would have been evasion of tax. Considering the case, the Tribunal reduced the penalty to 50 per cent from 150 per cent. We find that there is no justification to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal. Therefore, the tax case revision is dismissed.