1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2257 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax - V, Pune ..Appellant. Versus Mr.Brijmohan B. Bansal, Pune ..Respondent. Mr.Vimal Gupta for the appellant. None for the respondent. CORAM : Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud & J.P. Devadhar, JJ. DATE : 26th February, 2010. P.C. : 1. The following questions of law have been formulated by the Revenue in an appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. “A) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in deleting the addition of undisclosed income invested in F.Ds. In fictitious names and benami of the Cooperative Bank of which the Assessee was chairman for want of corroborating evidence ignoring the clinching evidence on record and inability to give any explanation by the legal heir of the Assessee ? B) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT has erred in not applying the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT (214 ITR 80) ?” 2 2. During the course of arguments, question (A) alone is pressed. 3. The answer to the issue which is sought to be raised in the question turns purely on appreciation of evidence. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had confirmed an addition of Rs.56,99,225/-. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal confirmed the addition to the extent of Rs.19,34,239/- and disallowed it for the balance. The Appeal by the Revenue is in respect of the balance, which was disallowed by the Tribunal. The finding of fact which has been recorded by the Tribunal is contained in Para 10 of the impugned order. On appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal has held that only an amount of Rs.19,34,239/- which was actually handed over to the assessee would have to be treated as his undisclosed income. With reference to other fixed deposit receipts, the Tribunal has held that the preponderance of probabilities is in favour of the assessee inasmuch as fixed deposits worth Rs.39.50 lakhs were admittedly accepted as belonging to one Mohan R. Gupta by the Department itself. Hence, the assessee being a Chairman of the Bank, at the relevant point of time, could not be inferred to have invested his unaccounted money in all other fixed deposits. The appreciation of evidence by the Tribunal is not shown to suffer from any perversity. No substantial question of law would arise in the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (J.P. Devadhar, J.) (Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud, J.)