JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA,J. - (1.) IN this appeal under S. 260A of the IT Act, 1961, the Revenue claims that the following substantial question of law arises in this case : "Whether, on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was justified in law in dismissing the appeal of the Revenue whereby affirming the order of the learned CIT(A) relating to the deletion of addition of Rs. 37,000 made by the AO on account of unexplained and ingenuine credits in the capital accounts of the partners appearing in the books of account of the assessee in the asst. year 1992 93, holding that no such addition was required to be made in the hands of the assessee when the source(s) of these credits were declared by the partners as 'surrendered' in the respective returns of income in their individual hands?"
(2.) A few facts as relevant for the decision of the case may be noticed. The respondent assessee is a partnership firm. Two of the partners viz. Shri Naresh Kalia and Smt. Kiran Chopra brought into their capital accounts the amounts of Rs. 22,000 and Rs. 15,000 respectively. They made these payments by account payee cheques. The AO made a query from these partners. They stated that the deposits had been made by them from their individual sources. The explanation was not accepted. It was observed that the partners did not appear to have any other independent business. Consequently, the amount of Rs. 37,000 was treated as the income of the firm. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed the appeal. The Dy. CIT(A) accepted the contention and ordered the deletion of the amount. The Revenue appealed to the Tribunal. It was dismissed. The finding recorded by the Dy. CIT(A) was that the income had been declared "by the partners in their individual capacity and the amounts have been credited to their capital account in the firm......" It was further held that it could not be said that "this amount is the income pertaining to the firm as long as any concrete evidence of concealed income or any discrepancy on the part of the firm is (sic) established". Still further, the Tribunal found that the two partners had in their individual capacity surrendered the particular income "before the IT Department and paid tax on the same irrespective of the source of income and those very amounts have been credited to their capital accounts in the firm......" On this basis, the Tribunal held that the amount did not represent the income of the firm. It is to challenge this order that the present appeal has been filed. Mr. Sawhney contended that the order passed by the Tribunal is wholly illegal. Thus, the appeal should be admitted.
(3.) AN appeal under S. 260A can be entertained by the High Court only if the case raises a substantial question of law. In the present case, it has been found as a fact by the Tribunal that the aforementioned partners had paid tax on the income declared by them. There is no evidence that "it was a concealed income of the partners of the firm". Thus, the case is based on the examination of evidence on record. A firm finding of fact has been recorded. No evidence is shown to have been brought on record which may indicate that the findings are wrong or perverse. Consequently, we hold that no substantial question of law arises. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed in limine. ;