Judgment:
A.M. Sapre, J.
1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue (IT Department) under Section 260A of the IT Act against an order, dt. 21st Nov., 2003, passed by Tribunal, in IT(SS)A No. 6/Ind/2002.
2. In short, the question that arises for consideration in this appeal is, whether this appeal involves any substantial question of law as is required to be made out under Section 260A of the Act that being the prerequisite for admission of appeal.
3. Heard Shri R.L. Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and having perused record of the case, we are of the opinion that the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law for consideration in this appeal and that two questi6ns proposed by the appellant (Revenue) do not satisfy the rigour of substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 260A of the Act.
5. The issue relates to grant of certain deletion which were made by the AO in the course of block 'assessment proceedings initiated against the assessed under Section 158BC of the Act. The AO did not accept the explanation offered by assessed and treating the said amount to be that of assessed added in his total income. The CIT(A) as also the Tribunal set aside the order of AO insofar as it related to additions made by him (AO). In other words, the CIT(A) and Tribunal accepted the factual explanation coupled with the evidence tendered by assessed in relation to the impugned additions made by AO and held that since the same have been properly explained and hence, they cannot be included while computing the total income of the assessed. Since, it was a case of raid, and hence, assessed was called upon to explain the source of income so as to enable the AO to determine the actual taxable liability arising out of the raid proceedings.
6. In our opinion, once the CIT(A) and then lastly the Tribunal have accepted the explanation of assessed and accordingly, deleted certain additions made by AO, then it does not involve any substantial issue of law as such. In other words, this Court in its appellate jurisdiction which is defined under Section 260A ibid, cannot again de novo hold yet another inquiry with a view to find out whether explanation offered by assessed and which found acceptance to two appellate authorities namely, CIT(A) and Tribunal, is good or bad, or whether it was rightly accepted, or not. It is only when the factual finding is entirely de hors the subject, or that it is based on no reasoning, or that it is absurd to the extent that no reasonable prudent man can ever reach to such conclusion, or that it is against the provision of law, a case for substantial question of law is made out.
7. In our view, no such error could be noticed by us in the impugned order. The Tribunal did go into the details of explanation offered by assessed and accepted the explanation thereby upholding the view of CIT(A). As a consequence, the certain additions made came to be deleted.
8. We thus, do not find any merit in the appeal. It fails and is dismissed in limine by holding that it does not involve any substantial question of law. No costs.