Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the assessee under section 260 -A of the Income -tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] against the order dated 10 -1 -2005 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in IT Appeal No. 540 (ASK)/ 1998 for the assessment year 1991 -92, proposing following substantial questions of law : - "A. Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case the TRIBUNAL right in law in holding that Assessing Officer is correctly assessed deposits in name of third person in the hand of appellant? B. Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case the TRIBUNAL right in law in holding that Assessing Officer has correctly relied unsubstantiated statement of material witness? C. Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the ease the TRIBUNAL right in law in holding deposits in the bank account of an unmarried daughter doing tuition work and earning salary by teaching could be treated as appellant's income without allowing cross -examination of deponent/daughter of the appellant who averred that deposits belonged to her? D. Whether the compliance of rule of natural justice is mandatory by affording an opportunity to the petitioner to cross -examine the witnesses of the case, especially when the petitioner had discharge his onus of rebutting the rebuttal presumption under section 132(a) of the Income Tax Act? E. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Tribunal was correct in confirming the addition of Rs. 70,100 on the basis of presumption as per the provision under section 132(4A) (Now section 292 -C of Income Tax Act, as inserted by Finance Act, 2007 with retrospective effect w.e.f. 1 -10 -1975) by ignoring the fact that daughter of the appellant was also residing in the same house at that time especially when she had confirmed that fact by filing an affidavit and the contents of such documents are true and correct - Search and seizure action under section 132(1) of the Act was earned out in the premises of the assessee, Certain documents including a pass book in the name of Sunita Rani daughter of the assessee were found. The Commissioner (Appeals) (CIT(A)) quashed the assessment. The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment under section 148 of the Act to bring to tax the unexplained deposit in the name of Sunita Rani who was unmarried daughter of assessee. The assessment was completed. The Assessing Officer again initiated proceedings under section 147 of the Act and completed the assessment which was upheld by the CIT(A). The assessee challenged the said view before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that addition based on unexplained cash entered in the pass book of the daughter of the assessee, was justified. Reference was made to section 132(4 -A) of the Act which permitted presumption to be raised that a document, found in possession of any person in the process of search, belongs to such person. It was held that the assessee failed to explain the source of deposit in the name of his unmarried daughter.
(2.) WE have heard counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that presumption under section 132(4 -A) of the Act was rebuttable and the assessee led evidence to rebut the said presumption. There is no dispute about the proposition that presumption can be rebutted nor the Tribunal has held to the contrary. The Tribunal has held that the assessee failed to rebut the presumption, which is purely a finding of fact. No substantial question of law arises from the impugned order. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.;