ISMAIL, C.J.

This is an appeal against the order of the Board of Revenue (Commercial Taxes) dated 9th August, 1979, suo motu revising the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Salem, dated 19th March, 1975, setting aside the penalty of Rs. 3.408 imposed on the appellant by the Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Leigh Bazaar and Gugai Division, Salem. The facts are not in controversy. The assessment relates to the year 1972-73. On inspection of the business place of the appellant on 8th January, 1973, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (Sago Investigation), Salem, and the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Attur, unearthed certain anamath pocket note books and slips showing unaccounted transactions. The entries in the anamath pocket note books and slips were compared with the account books of the appellant and, as a result of such comparison and verification, a total suppressed turnover of Rs. 1, 92, 381.82 was found. The Joint Commercial Tax Officer issued a notice to the appellant herein asking him to show cause why his accounts should not be rejected and the turnover be estimated and a penalty under section 12(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, be levied on the appellant. The appellant, by his letter dated 28th February, 1974, stated that he was ready to pay tax due on the sales turnover as proposed in the notice, but requested the Joint Commercial Tax Officer to drop the proceedings for levy of penalty under section 12(3) of the Act. While completing the assessment according to law the Joint Commercial Tax Officer levied a penalty referred to above on the ground that the suppressions were unearthed from the anamath accounts recovered during inspection on 8th January, 1973, and, therefore, the request of the appellant could not be complied with.Against the order of the Joint Commercial Tax Officer, the appellant herein preferred an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (Commercial Taxes), Salem. The said officer, by his order dated 19th March, 1975, within sustaining the assessment on the basis of estimate, set aside the penalty imposed by the Joint Commercial Tax Officer. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner Stated :

"Section 12(3) of the Act has been amended and the word 'wilful' had been inserted in section 12(3) of the Act with effect from 1st December, 1972. Revised section 12(3) is analogous with section 16(2) of the Act with effect from 1st December, 1972. As such, a specific finding about the wilful non-disclosure of assessable turnover is essential to levy penalty under section 12(3) of the Act after 1st December, 1972. Further, the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Madras Metal Works v. State of Madras applies, where penalty was levied prior to the amendment of section 12(3), i.e., prior to 1st December, 1972. As there is no specific finding that there has been a wilful non-disclosure of assessable turnover in the order of assessment in this case and as the same is essential in order to justify the imposition of penalty under section 12(3) of the Act, I consider that the assessing officer is not justified in levying a penalty of Rs. 3, 408 in this case. Hence, I set aside the levy of penalty in this case for want of a specific finding as contemplated in the judgments of the Madras High Court in the case of Oveekee Textiles v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Tiruchengode and in the case of Ramakutty Nadar v. State of Madras In the above circumstances, and basing the above decisions, the levy of penalty of Rs. 3, 408 is set aside." *

It was this order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that was revised by the Board of Revenue (Commercial Taxes). After giving notice to the appellant herein, and after hearing him, in a very elaborate order, the Board pointed out that the assessing officer had used the word "suppression" which would be sufficient and tat the contention of the assessee-appellant that the word "suppressed" would mean only "to conceal" was, therefore,