- (1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the assessee against the impugned judgment of the Appellate Tribunal annexure -1.
(2.) BY annexure 1 the learned Tribunal had decided two appeals being Appeals Nos. 663 and 664. Appeal No. 663 related to the assessment year 1989 -90, while Appeal No. 664 related to the assessment year 1990 -91. In the present appeal the findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal while deciding Appeal No. 663 only have been assailed, and that also with respect to ground No. 1 only whereby the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the Revenue, and set aside the deletion of the amount purportedly on account of unexplained investment on the plot bearing No. 27D. The appeal came to be listed on July 19, 2002, on which date notice was ordered to be issued to show cause. Then, since nobody appeared on behalf of the Revenue, on August 28, 2002, the appeal was admitted. However, in the order of admission no substantial question of law was formulated. Then, the matter came up on September 25, 2002. On that day it was noticed that the appeal has been admitted without formulating the substantial question of law. However, it was considered appropriate that the appeal itself be heard on priority basis, and therefore, the appeal was directed to be listed for hearing at the admission stage. Thereafter, after various adjournments after adjournments, it has now come up before us. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the finding of the learned Tribunal is based on misreading of the record, and is, therefore, liable to be set aside.
(3.) ON the other hand, learned Counsel for the Revenue submits that the finding recorded is a pure finding of fact, and does not involve any substantial question of law. In our view, the present appeal does involve the substantial question of law being: As to whether the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal in paragraph 6 of the judgement is an out come of misreading of the record? ;