We do not think that there is any substantial question of law arising in this case. There was a surprise inspection of the assessee's place of business and at that time it was found that there was a stock difference. In addition, certain slips were recovered and atleast some of them represented sales turnover which have been suppressed. On the basis of the slips and the stock variation, the assessing authority made a best judgment assessment making certain additions to the admitted turnover in its assessment. The said assessment was challenged before the appellate authority. The assessing authority had also levied penalty under section 12(3). The appellate authority, however, restricted the addition to the actual suppression, that is Rs. 13, 858.47. There was an appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal also upheld the additions sustained by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Two points are canvassed by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner before us. One is that the stock variation has been duly explained by the assessee and the authorities below have erred in rejecting the assessee's explanation. As regards the slips which formed the basis of the addition to the reported turnover, the contention of the assessee is that the slips did not represent the actual sale transactions, but they represent the estimates give by the assessee to the purchasers which did not in fact materialise into actual sales. However, the authorities below, including the Appellate Tribunal which is a final fact-finding authority, have rejected the assessee's explanation and held that there was justification for making an addition on the ground of the stock difference as also on t

he turnover represented by the slips Nos. 8 and 16. We do not think any interference is called for. The decision of the Tribunal is based purely on facts. The revision is therefore dismissed.