JUDGMENT
Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.
1. The assessee has filed this appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It maintains that in the circumstances of this case the additions made by the impugned orders are unsustainable. A few facts may be noticed.
2. The appeal relates to the assessment year 1990-91. The assessee’ filed its return declaring an income of Rs. 84,630. The Assessing Officer after examination of the evidence made the following additions :
(1) The claim of the assessee for Rs. 1,000 on account of expenses was disallowed.
(2) An addition of Rs. 23,000 was made on account of income from undisclosed sources.
(3) Another addition of Rs. 35,000 was made.
2. The additions at serial Nos. 2 and 3 were made under Section 68 of the Act.
3. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) accepted the assessee’s claim in respect of the expenses of Rs. 1,000. The remaining additions were confirmed. The assessee filed a second appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal granted partial relief. Out of the amount of Rs. 23,000, the assessee’s claim in respect of Rs. 15,000 was accepted. So far as the addition of Rs. 35,000 is concerned, the appeal was dismissed. Hence, this appeal.
4. Mr. Mittal contends that the assessee had received loans from Smt. Gurdev Kaur and Mr. Amarjit Singh. Smt. Gurdev Kaur had a land and was, thus, in a position to advance a loan of Rs. 23,000. Similarly, even Amarjit Singh had made the payment by cheque. In this situation, counsel submits, the action of the authorities in sustaining the additions cannot be upheld.
5. The matter has been considered at length by the Tribunal. It has been found that so far as Smt. Gurdev Kaur is concerned there was a balance of Rs. 15,288 in her account in the month of March prior to the advancing of the loan. Thus, the assessee’s claim to the extent of Rs. 15,000 out of the total balance of Rs. 15,288 has been accepted and the addition to the extent of Rs. 8,000 has been upheld. So far as Amarjit Singh is concerned, it has been found as a fact that he had a balance of Rs. 563.52 in his bank. The deposit of Rs. 35,000 was made in cash a day prior to the issue of the cheque. On an examination of the evidence, the Tribunal has found that it was not a genuine transaction. Thus, the addition as made by the Assessing Officer and affirmed by the appellate authority has been sustained.
6. On a consideration of the matter, we are satisfied that the decision is based on appreciation of evidence. No question of law much less than a substantial question of law arises. Thus, no ground for interference under Secttion 260A of the Act is made out.
7. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed in limine.