M.P. SINGH Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE assessee has preferred this appeal under s. 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act") against the order dt. 13th proposing to raise the following substantial questions of law :

(2.) THE assessee claimed agriculture income from sale of Safeda trees and produced documentary evidence in respect thereof. The AO did not believe the evidence of the assessee for various reasons mentioned in para No. 4 of the impugned order. This view was affirmed by the CIT(A). The bills relied upon by the assessee were held to be not genuine for the reasons reproduced in para No. 7 of the impugned judgment of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has upheld the finding of the AO and the CIT(A) for detailed reasons given in paras Nos. 13, 14 and 16 of the judgment.

(3.) AFTER perusal of the orders of the AO, the CIT(A) and the Tribunal, we are unable to hold that the concurrent findings are perverse so as to call for interference. The questions proposed cannot be held to be substantial questions of law.