R.K. Gulati, J. - (1.) These are two cross-applications filed under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, one at the instance of the Revenue and the other by the assessee. Both these applications pertain to the assessment year 1984-85 and are directed against a common order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.
(2.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The assessee is a registered firm engaged in the business of purchase and sale of scrap. An aggregate amount of Rs. 1,60,000 was brought to tax as unexplained cash credits under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act which appeared in seven different names. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) accepted the explanation of the assessee in respect of three deposits aggregating to Rs. 85,000 and deleted that addition from the income of the assessee. In respect of the remaining four deposits which were to the tune of Rs. 75,000, the addition was confirmed. On cross-appeals, the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was affirmed. Cross-applications under Section 256(1) having been dismissed, these applications have been filed as stated earlier.
(3.) In our opinion, both these applications are liable to be dismissed, for the order of the Tribunal is concluded by findings of fact. Where the additions were maintained by the Tribunal, it found that although the identity of the depositors has been established, their capacity to make the deposits was not established because, firstly, there was no evidence about the activities as claimed by the depositors, secondly, from the alleged activities, there could hardly be any savings out of which the deposits in question could be made. The depositors were not aware of the returns having been filed by them although returns had been filed on their behalf. Likewise where the Tribunal has accepted the deposit, it has found as a fact that the identity and the capacity both have been proved from the material that had been brought on record. In a given set of circumstances whether a cash credit had been proved or whether the additions under Section 68 of the Act were justified or not is purely a question of fact and does not give rise to any question of law when the conclusion is based on appreciation of relevant evidence placed on record. It is not possible to say that the conclusion reached by the Tribunal was arbitrary or the inferences drawn by the Tribunal were not possible having regard to the evidence discussed in the order of the Tribunal.;