THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN ITTA NOS.50 AND 51 OF 2009 13-11-2009 BETWEEN; Sri Devaraj Moorjani ...Petitioner vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad and another ...Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN ITTA NOS.50 AND 51 OF 2009 ORAL COMMON ORDER: (Per RR,J) ITTA Nos.50 and 51 of 2009 are preferred against the common orde in I.T.(SS) Nos.11 and 14/Hyd/2007 dated 27.02.2009, to the extent th Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, (Bench-B), Hyderbad upheld the orde passed by the C.I.T.(Appeals). These appeals, preferred under Sectio 260-A of the Income Tax Act,1961, (for short “the Act”), can be entertaine by the High Court only on its being satisfied that the case involves substantial question of law. Sri Pilli Nagaraj, learned counsel for the appellant in both the appeals would submit that, for the block periods 1988-89 to 1998-1999, all si family members of the appellant together were held liable to pa Rs.1,69,18,191/-. He would submit that the main ground on which th Tribunal had rejected their appeals was that on money payments, over an above the sale consideration disclosed in the sale deed, were unearthe during the course of search operations and that this fact was not disclose to the Department by the assessee in the income tax returns filed earlie Learned counsel would submit that except for the confessional statemen of Sri Devraj Moorjani no independent evidence was gathered, such a examination of vendors etc., to ascertain whether any on money paymen was made over and above the sale consideration. In the order, under appeal, the Tribunal has referred to the fact tha when Sri Devraj Moorjani was examined, on the basis of incriminatin material found during the course of search operations, he had admitte that there was an on money payment of Rs.12 lakhs for purchase of th property and that this was further confirmed by Sri Shamraj Moorjani. Wit regards the CBDT Circular relied upon on behalf of the assessee, th Tribunal observed that, while these instructions required the officers t concentrate on collecting material evidence during the course of searc operations rather than compelling the assessee to make a confession, th present case was not a mere confession or admission made by th assessee and when the Department sought clarification, on the basis o incriminating material, both Sri Devraj Moorjani and Shamraj Moorjani ha clarified that they had made on money payments to the extent of Rs.1 lakhs. The Tribunal further held that this statement was based on th incriminating material found during the course of search operation and tha the lower authorities had rightly made the addition of Rs.12 lakhs i respect of the property at Aushapur village. With regards the property at Krishna Nagar Colony, Yousufguda Hyderabad, the Tribunal records that, on examination during the course o search operation and on the basis of the incriminating material foun during the course of search operation, Sri Devraj Moorjani and Shamra Moorjani had admitted that there was on money payment of Rs.25 lakhs fo purchasing the property at Krishna Nagar Colony and, since thi admission was made on the basis of the material found during the cours of search operation, there was no merit in their contention. The Tribuna further observed that the lower authorities had rightly made the addition i respect of Krishna Nagar Colony Property to the extent of Rs.25 lakhs. The appellants in both these appeals, in effect, seek re-appreciation o the evidence on record. A substantial question of law arises only when th findings recorded by the authorities/tribunal are perverse. Where on th same facts if two conclusions are possible and, even if this Court were o the view that the conclusion suggested by the assessee was mor attractive, it would, nonetheless, refrain from interference inasmuch a appreciation of facts is within the exclusive jurisdiction of th authority/Tribunal, and not the High Court in an appeal under Section 260 A of the Act. It is only on a substantial question of law, and if the finding recorded by the Tribunal are perverse, would the High Court interfere. We are satisfied that the order of the Tribunal does not suffer from perversity or any other infirmity warranting interference. Both thes appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. ______________ GODA RAGHURAM,J __________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J 13th NOVEMBER 2009 TSNR