S.C.Sen, J. - (1.) The Tribunal has referred the following two questions of law to this court for our opinion : "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the confessional statement given before the Department by Shri Vindananda Surekha, Surekha Jute Co., the Tribunal was right in deleting the amount of Rs. 60,000 from the total income of the assessee relating to the assessment year J 964-65 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the confessional statement given by Shri Tarachand Surekha, the Tribunal was right in deleting the amount of Rs. 25,000 credited in the name of Jain Finance Distributors (India) (P.) Ltd. for the assessment year 1965-66? "
(2.) The question was whether the genuineness of the loans claimed to have been advanced by Vindananda Surekha, Surekha Jute Co. and also Tarachand Surekha were proved by the assessee. The question really is whether the assessee has been able to discharge the onus cast upon it by Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, of proving the genuineness of cash credits. The question of discharge of onus is always a question of fact. Here, the Tribunal, on a review of the evidence that was on record, came to the conclusion that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was right in holding that the loans had been proved. No question of perversity has been raised. It is really a question of appreciation of evidence. Whether this court agrees with the inference of fact made by the Tribunal or not is not really material.
(3.) Therefore, both the questions are answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs.;