IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH I.T.A. No. 876 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: 08.12.2011 Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Ludhiana ........Appellant vs. Varinder Singh .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA Present: Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Advocate for the appellant Ms. Jyoti, Advocate and Mr. S.K. Mukhi, Advocate for the respondent HEMANT GUPTA, J. The Revenue is in appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') against the order dated 25.9.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench 'A' Chandigarh in ITA No. 692/CHD/2008 for the assessment year 2000-01. The Revenue has sought the following substantial questions of law:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT is right in deleting the addition of Rs.15,50,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplained investment in the capital account.” The assessee is said to have invested a sum of Rs. 16 lacs in the partnership firm in the name of M/s. Varinder Singh Sadhu Ram and Company having 10% share. The Joint Director of I.T.A. No. 876 of 2010(O&M) 2 Income Tax (Investigation), Amritsar received information that the assessee had contributions of Rs. 15.50 lacs from eight different individuals who were not living at the addresses given by the assessee, therefore, the Assessing Officer on the basis of such information has observed that this amount of Rs. 15.50 lacs was apparently undisclosed income of the assessee. Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, in appeal has set aside the findings recorded by the Assessing Officer. It found that there is no material to establish that Rs. 15.50 lacs received by the assessee, from partners in the said partnership firm, can be treated as assessee's undisclosed income. It is said finding which was affirmed by the Tribunal in the impugned order in the present appeal. The Tribunal has also recorded that the partners are income tax assesses and the copies of balance sheet in the requisite details have been placed on record. The revenue authorities have not been able to rebut the correctness of such documents. We find that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are based upon the evidence led by the assessee which was not rebutted by the revenue. Such findings are findings of fact which does not give rise to substantial question of law. Dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (G.S. SANDHAWALIA) 08.12.2011 JUDGE reena