R.K.GULATI, J. - (1.) THIS is an application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, in our opinion the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is concluded by the findings of fact. To the income returned by the assessee, two additions, amongst others, were made, one on account of the value of suppressed sales amounting to Rs. 10,96.605 and the other for difference in stock as per books and that pledged with the bank for which an addition of Rs. 21,260 was made. The Commissioner of Income-tax Appeals, Meerut, deleted both the additions. That order was confirmed in second appeal at the instance of the Revenue by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal found as a fact that production of line, disclosed by the assessee, from the lime stone was not law which was 50 per cent. Another finding recorded by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was that the Income-tax Officer had proceeded to make the addition of Rs. 10,06,605 on an erroneous assumption and the export opinion obtained by him and no relevance to the case of the assessee.
(2.) IN this application under section 256(2) of the INcome-tax Act, 1961, the Revenue has sought reference of the question whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in confirming the order of the Commissioner of INcome-tax (Appeals) deleting the addition in question on account of suppressed sales. IN confirming the order of the Commissioner of INcome-tax (Appeals), the Tribunal has discussed the matter at length and has found that the additions made by the INcome-tax Officer cannot be sustained on the material that existed on the record. Nothing was brought to our notice, as a result of which the findings recorded by the Tribunal could be held be held to be vitiated. Whether the production shown in a given case is adequate or not is essentially a question of fact which does not involve any question of law. In so far as the second addition is concerned, the Tribunal has accepted the explanation furnished by the assessee that part of the stock pledged with the bank was that of third party. The Tribunal having believed the version of the assessee and the evidence placed before it. In our opinion, it again does not give the to any question of law. This application is without any substance and is, accordingly, rejected. There shall be no order as to costs. ;