I.T.A. No. 911 of 2008 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH I.T.A. No. 911 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION: 7.7.2009 Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad ..........Appellant Versus Shri Tule Ram ..........Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Advocate for the appellant. **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) 1. This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against order dated 16.11.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'E', New Delhi in ITA No. 125/DEL/2004 for the assessment years 1989-90 to 2000-01. 2. During search of business and residential premises of another assessee on 6.2.1999, certain documents were seized indicating involvement of the assessee in purchase of property. Block assessment proceedings were initiated, on which the assessee filed return declaring nil undisclosed income. However, the Assessing Officer made assessment on the basis of material seized during the search on the ground that the assessee admitted his having come into contact with the other assessee in whose premises search was conducted. It was also observed that the assessee was having sufficient assets, from which inference of undisclosed I.T.A. No. 911 of 2008 (2) income was drawn. 3. On appeal, the findings made by the Assessing Officer were reversed holding that the material recovered was not reliable. It was observed that in the assessment of Dalip H. Surtani, the assesee in whose premises search was conducted, the documents found were unreliable. The Tribunal affirmed the findings of CIT(A). 4. In view of concurrent finding of CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal, it is clear that the documents recovered at the time of search were found to be unreliable. Whether in the given facts and situation, a document found can be held to be reliable or not, cannot be held to be a question of law. 5. The finding recorded by the Tribunal is, thus, a finding of fact. No substantial question of law arises. 6. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE July 07, 2009 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .......Yes/No