JUDGMENT
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.
1. By these two applications filed under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the assessee is asking this court to direct the Tribunal to state the following questions in respect of the assessment years 1983-84 and 1985-86. The questions relating to the assessment year 1983-84 are :
“1. Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in sustaining an addition of Rs. 49,725 on account of unexplained investment in the construction of house property despite the finding of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that the assessee, an old man of 80 years doing business for past several years, ought to be given some benefit for past savings was yet given no benefit ?
2. Whether, in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in discarding the valuation report of the assessee’s valuer and accepting the valuation report of the Department Valuation Cell without proof ?
3. Whether the Tribunal was justified in sustaining the orders of the Income-tax Officer as well as the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on the point of non-co-operation by the assessee despite the fact that returns were filed on January 26, 1985, and the Income-tax Officer fixed December 27, 1985, and made ex parte assessment on December 27, 1985, and thus the assessment was vitiated for want of proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee ?
4. Whether the Tribunal was wrong in adding the sum of Rs. 49,725 to the income of one year despite the fact that the income from business was held to be Rs. 10,000 only and there was no other source of income except the past savings ?”
2. The questions relating to the assessment year 1985-86 are :
“1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was not justified in treating the whole jewellery as that of the daughter-in-law of the assessee and in adding Rs. 25,620 as income in the assessment year without considering that the price of gold at the time of the marriage of the assessee about 60 years ago was only about Rs. 20 per tola ?
2. Whether the Tribunal was wrong in holding that the source of acquisition of Rs. 9,500 found in the house was not disclosed by discarding the statement of the assessee that the sum of Rs. 9,500 belonged to him as well as to his son both of whom reside in the same house and carry on business and the amount could be obtained by sales of the business of gur ?
3. Whether the Tribunal was justified in assessing the business income at Rs. 12,000 despite accepting that the income of the assessee was too meagre in past years ?
4. Whether the Tribunal was not justified in sustaining the orders passed by the Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in view of the fact that the return was filed on December 26, 1985, and ex parte assessments were made on December 27, 1985, without affording proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee and the assessment orders are vitiated as the assessee, being a heart patient, could not attend on December 27, 1985, before the Income-tax Officer ?”
3. So far as question No. 3 (for the year 1983-84) and question No. 4 (for the year 1985-86) are concerned, they are identical. They relate to proper opportunity of hearing said to have been denied to the assessee. But the Tribunal has observed in its order that no such argument was addressed before it nor dealt with by it in its order. It cannot, therefore, be said that the questions arise from the order of the Tribunal.
4. So far as the other questions are concerned, they are all questions of fact. It appears that a raid was conducted in the premises of the assessee and certain jewellery, cash and other properties were seized, which, inter alia, showed certain investment in construction of a house property. Since the assessee practically gave no explanation, additions were made on that account. The mere fact that the assessee is an 80-year old man cannot be an explanation for non-participation or for not making an attempt to establish his contentions.
5. The applications are, accordingly, dismissed.