Judgment K. Raviraja Pandian, J. 1. The assessee is on appeal against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 38. 2000 made in T.A. No.621 of 1998. 2. Though almost all the grounds are formulated to be a question of law, the one and only the question argued before this Court is as follows:- "Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in refixing the penalty when the entire thing was found out from the books of accounts and also based on the estimated additions and further when the entire tax dues were paid even before final assessment?" 3. The facts of the case are as follows: The appellant/dealer has reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs.13,06,303/-and Rs.7,24,234/- respectively in the monthly return for the assessment year 1995-96. While processing the accounts, the assessing officer had noted that at the time of inspection of the place of business of the assessee on 16.09.1995 it was found that there was omission of purchase of gold and silver to the extent of Rs.12,225/-. In addition to that there were some other mistakes, such as, unverifiable bought notes and high gross profits, which were admitted by the parties concerned. On the basis of the materials, the assessing officer rejected the return as incomplete and incorrect and determined the turnover by adding 10% for the defects towards purchase omission and excess gross profit and made further addition of 5% for the general defects. Thus, the assessing officer fixed the turnover at Rs.26,47,425/-and imposed a penalty in a sum of Rs.23,340/-. Originally, as the penalty so imposed did not include the additional sales tax the assessing officer refixed the penalty in a sum of Rs.37,067/- by a separate order. On appeal, the first appellate authority has confirmed the order in respect of 10% and 5% addition made however deleted the penalty in its entirety. As against that order, the assessee filed two appeals. As against the deletion of penalty, the Revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, while confirming the order of the authorities below in respect of 10% addition for the variation and omission, reduced the addition made in respect of general defects from 5% to 2%. The Tribunal rejected the contention made by the revenue against the deletion of penalty. But however that is not the subject matter before us as the revenue has not appealed against the same. 4. The Tribunal rejected the contention made by the revenue against the deletion of penalty. But however that is not the subject matter before us as the revenue has not appealed against the same. 4. We heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. 5. As could be seen from the records that in respect of the omission, the assessee accepted the same before the inspecting officer, and did not repudiate the same either before the assessing officer or before any of the authorities including the Tribunal. Hence, the addition made for the purchase omission is confirmed, having regard to the high gross profit shown. Further the assessing officer has added 5% for purchase omission in respect of the gold and 5% for the purchase omission in respect of silver. We find that the addition of 5% cannot be regarded as high considering the nature of business which the assessee carried on. The Tribunal, in respect of the general defects, for which 5% has been added by the assessing officer, and confirmed by the first appellate authority, reduced the same to 2%, in as much as the defects are very slender in nature. 6. We do not find any irregularity or illegality in the order of the Tribunal. No question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal. The revision is dismissed. No costs.