ORDER Mrs. Chitra Venkataraman :- The assessee is on revision as against the order of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai (main bench) dated September 27, 2000 passed in T.A. No. 698 of 1999. The assessment year under consideration is 1996-97. It is seen from the order of the authorities below that the petitioner's business premises were inspected on September 23, 1996 by the Enforcement Wing Officials, wherein it was found that the day book was found posted up to May 30, 1996. The inspection further revealed that actual stock of Rs. 7,740 found was not supported by bills. Apart from that, inter-State purchases for Rs. 2,28,177 were not accounted for in the accounts. The inspection further revealed that as per the two slips recovered at the time of inspection, purchase for Rs. 3,097 was not accounted for. These defects were admitted in the statement at the time of inspection. Thus, the assessing officer made on best of judgment assessment on the actual suppression found and also estimated two times addition towards probable suppression. A notice was issued to the assessee on the said assessment, to which the assessee filed his reply on April 13, 1998 contending that the purchases which were unaccounted for at the time of inspection were subsequently accounted, and hence, in the circumstances, the question of treating it as unaccounted transaction did not arise. The officer considered the said submission and held that the purchases which were found unaccounted at the time of inspection on September 23, 1996 were not proved to be accounted. In the circumstances, the proposals were confirmed. As against the same, the assessee went on appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who rejected the contention of the assessee as regards the claim for subsequent accounting of Rs. 2,28,177. However, the order of the assessing officer in respect of addition of two times towards probable omission was restricted to equal time addition for probable omission. Further the Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed the levy of penalty. As against the same, the assessee went on appeal before the Tribunal. Admittedly, the assessee did not appear at the time of hearing. The Tribunal considered the merits of the case on the basis of the records and ultimately dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision by the assessee. As against the same, the assessee went on appeal before the Tribunal. Admittedly, the assessee did not appear at the time of hearing. The Tribunal considered the merits of the case on the basis of the records and ultimately dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision by the assessee. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the assessee had accounted for inter-State purchases, which were found unaccounted at the time of inspection. The assessee had also stated so in its reply of the pre-assessment notice. Without considering the same, the officer had treated it as an unaccounted transaction, to result in the best of judgment assessment. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the Tribunal had not considered the case of the assessee for deleting the further addition in this case. Consequently, he prayed for setting aside the order of the Tribunal. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Special Government Pleader (Taxes) appearing for the respondent. It is no doubt true that the assessee in its reply dated April 13, 1998 contended that the inter-State purchases which were unaccounted at the time of inspection were subsequently accounted. However, the officer found that the subsequent accounted transactions were not with reference to the said turnover and no proof was let in by the assessee to substantiate the said contention as regards the subsequent accounting of the unaccounted transaction. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner considered the claim of the assessee and ultimately rejected the plea of the assessee. However, as regards two times addition, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner pointed out that there was no recovery and any material, except two slips to warrant further addition. Consequently, he confirmed the equal addition for probable omission. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal as a final fact finding body found that when the assessee had admitted the stock difference and the suppression and that the assessee failed to rewrite the stock difference, rightly the assessing officer treated the turnover as actual suppression. As regards equal addition the Tribunal confirmed the view of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner for equal addition. In the circumstances, the Tribunal confirmed the levy of penalty. As far as the assessment on actual suppression found is concerned, we do not find any good ground to accept the assessee's case. As regards equal addition the Tribunal confirmed the view of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner for equal addition. In the circumstances, the Tribunal confirmed the levy of penalty. As far as the assessment on actual suppression found is concerned, we do not find any good ground to accept the assessee's case. However as regards the equal time addition, it is a matter of relevance to note that further addition under the head of equal addition for probable omission does not follow as an automatic concomitant assessment on actual suppression. Merely because the assessee's explanation, as regards the subsequent accounting of the unaccounted purchase had been rejected by the officer, that by itself would not justify the equal time addition towards probable suppression. In the absence of any further material to substantiate that the assessee had been habitually indulging in suppressed transaction, we do not find any ground to substantiate further addition under the head of probable omission. In the circumstances, even though it is a revision, we are constrained to accept the case of the assessee on further addition made on equal time addition for probable omission. In the circumstances, the tax case revision is partly allowed deleting the addition made under the head of probable addition which is equal to the actual suppression. No costs.