OM PARKASH Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DURING the assessment year 1975-76, the assesses had credited an amount of Rs. 5,000 in his account books alleged to have been received from his grandmother-in-law through draft No. 316644 dated April 10, 1974. The Income-tax Officer treated the same as income of the assessee from unexplained sources while finalising the assessment. This addition to the returned income of the assessee was upheld by the Assistant Appellate Commissioner as well as the Tribunal. On an application made by the assessee under Section 256 (1) of the Income-tax Act, the Tribunal has referred the following question for our opinion: "whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in not relying on the affidavit dated October 31, 1975, purportedly sworn to by late Smt. Surjt Devi and consequently treating Rs. 5,000 as the income of the assessee from undisclosed sources ?"

(2.) IN our opinion, the question framed does not disclose any question of law which need be answered by this court. The acceptance or rejection of any piece of evidence by the Tribunal would squarely fall within the ambit of appreciation of evidence and ordinarily would not give rise to any question of law. The Tribunal and the authorities below for valid reasons rejected the affidavit furnished by Smt. Surji Devi. So, no question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal. However, the learned counsel relying on Juggi Lal Kamlapat v. Ram Janki Gupta, AIR 1962 All 407; Raja Himanshu Dhar Singh v. Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, AIR 1962 All 439 ; Mehta Parikh and Co. v. CIT [1956] 30 ITR 181 (SC); Dilip Kumar Roy v. CIT [1974] 94 ITR 1 (Bom) and D. Yasodamma v. CIT [1968] 70 ITR 515 (AP), contended that the correctness of the conclusion arrived at on the proved facts would constitute a question of law. None of the decisions relied upon supports this contention. Since long, it has been settled by the Supreme Court that an inference drawn on a question of fact on appreciation of evidence is nothing but a finding of fact. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the rejection of the affidavit of Smt. Surji Devi by the Tribunal, on the facts and circumstances of the case, does not give rise to any question of law and the reference is accordingly declined. No costs.