D.K. Jain, C.J.
1. This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), is directed against order dated February 24, 2004, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar (for short 'the Tribunal'), in I. T. A. No. 659(ASR)/1997 pertaining to the assessment year 1988-89.
2. According to the Revenue, the order gives rise to the following substantial question of law :
1. Whether, the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in dismissing the appeal of the Revenue by holding that the payment was made by Shri Kulwant Singh, although the facts as found for the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in order dated October 8, 1992, for the assessment year 1989-90 were different ?
2. Whether, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that no association of persons was in existence when it is undisputed that payment to Excise authorities was made on behalf of three persons (Sh. Kulwant Singh, Sh. Balbir Singh and Sh. Daljit Singh) who later on formed a firm with effect from April 1, 1988 ?
3. Whether the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was perverse as it was based on unsupported version of the assessee ?
3. Briefly stated, the material facts giving rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows :
In respect of the assessment year 1989-90, the Assessing Officer, while framing the assessment for the said assessment year, made an addition of Rs. 3,75,000 as unexplained investment. The assessment was framed under Section 144 of the Act in the status of association of persons (for short 'the AOPs'). However, on the assessee's challenge to the said order in appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the addition was deleted on the ground that the alleged investment was made during the previous year, relevant to the assessment year 1988-89.
4. In view of the said order of the Tribunal, the Assessing Officer initiated action under Section 148 of the Act in respect of the assessment year 1988-89, and framed an assessment under Section 144 on the respondent, taking its status as association of persons.
5. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who annulled the assessment, inter alia, on the ground that since the assessee-firm came into existence only with effect from April 1, 1988, no assessment could be framed on an association of persons prior to the said date.
6. Not being satisfied with the order, the Revenue took the matter in further appeal to the Tribunal. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has upheld the view taken by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Hence, the present appeal.
7. It is vehemently argued by Dr. N.L. Sharda, learned Counsel for the Revenue, that since an excise licence had been issued in the name of M/s. Kulwant Singh and Company-assessee herein, in March 1988, in favour of the three partners of the said firm, namely, Sarv Shri Kulwant Singh, Balbir Singh and Daljit Singh, a firm or an association of persons is deemed to have come into existence in the previous year, relevant to the assessment year 1988-89.
8. We are unable to agree with learned Counsel. Merely because an excise licence is stated to have been issued in the name of three persons, who constituted a firm with effect from April 1, 1988, it cannot be said that a firm or an association of persons had in fact come into existence prior to the said date. Whether or not a firm or association of persons came into existence is a pure question of fact, to be determined on the basis of evidence on record. Admittedly, in the present case, except the excise licence, no other material was placed before the Tribunal in support of the stand of the Revenue that an association of persons was in fact in existence in the assessment year 1988-89. In this view of the matter, no fault can be found with the finding recorded by the Tribunal that neither a firm nor an association of persons being in existence in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1988-89, no assessment could be framed in the said status. The finding recorded by the Tribunal is a pure finding of fact, giving rise to no question of law, much less a substantial question of law.
9. Consequently, we decline to entertain the appeal.
10. Dismissed.