JUDGMENT N.D. Ojha, J. - A search was made of the residential premises of the assessee-applicant, Shri Malti Prasad (HUF), on 20-8-1976. During the said search, a sum of Rs. 1,28,085 in cash and jewellery valued at Rs. 48,380 was found. Out of the sum of Rs. 1,28,085, the assessee surrendered Rs. 96,000 and for the balance gave explanation. According to him, Rs. 15,000 belonged to Smt. Pusha Mittal, his married daughter, Rs. 8,085 to Smt. Janki Devi, wife of the assessee, and Rs. 9,000 to Smt. Bhanu Devi, mother of Smt. Janki Devi. In regard to the jewellery, the case of the assessee was that it belonged to his daughters-in-law. The ITO accepted the explanation of the assessee insofar as the sum of Rs. 15,000 is concerned. Deducting the said sum of Rs. 15,000, he added the remaining amount as income of the applicant. In regard to the jewellery, the ITO recorded a specific finding disbelieving the case of the assessee in the following terms: As mentioned above, it has been admitted by Shri Malti Prasad that the silver and jewellery was for sale so that the amount realised may be disclosed before the Settlement Commission, meaning thereby that the jewellery belongs to the assessee and it was meant for business purposes. Even after recording the said finding, the ITO gave benefit to the assessee in regard to the ornaments valued at Rs. 25,880. He took the view that some credit will have to be given for the silver ornaments owned and possessed by the above ladies. On this finding, sum of Rs. 22,500, representing the value of ornaments, was added towards the income of the assessee and assessed as such. The order of the ITO was upheld by the Commissioner except that he allowed benefit of Rs. 2,000 to the assessee towards impurities in the ornaments, with the result that the addition of Rs. 22,500 made by the ITO towards the value of ornaments, was reduced to Rs. 20,500. The appeal filed by the assessee before the Tribunal was dismissed and the application made by the assessee for making a reference to this Court u/s 256(1) of the income tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), was also dismissed. Aggrieved, the assessee has made this application u/s 256(2) with a prayer that the Tribunal may be directed to refer the following three questions to this Court for opinion: 1. Aggrieved, the assessee has made this application u/s 256(2) with a prayer that the Tribunal may be directed to refer the following three questions to this Court for opinion: 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income tax Appellate Tribunal was right in sustaining the addition of Rs. 8,085, Rs. 9,000 and Rs. 20,500 in the assessment of the assessee as family income from undisclosed sources? 2. Whether in view of the fact that out of the total silver ornaments seized from the residence, the explanation with regard to the half of the silver ornaments was accepted that they belong to Smt. Janki Devi and her daughter-in-law, there was any justification in rejecting the claim partly and sustaining the addition in the hands of Malti Prasad HUF. 3. Whether there is any material on record that the silver ornament valuing Rs. 20,500 belong to the Malti Prasad HUF when the other members of the family also reside in the same house and half of the silver ornaments were accepted as belonging to them? 2. It was urged by the counsel for the appellant that it was not open to the Tribunal to have disbelieved the case of the applicant in part and believed it in part insofar as it related to the jewellery valued at Rs. 48,380. Reliance in support of this submission was placed on a decision of the Calcutta High Court in Tara Devi Goenka Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1980) 122 ITR 14 . The facts of that case are that the explanation of the assessee was not wholly discarded or disbelieved and it was held that in these circumstances, it was for the revenue either to discard or accept the explanation offered by the assessee There was no scope for apportionment. Such apportionment is without any evidence and cannot be sustained. 3. In our opinion, the aforesaid case is clearly distinguishable on the facts of the instant case. Here, as seen above, the explanation of the assessee was disbelieved by the ITO whose order was upheld by the Commissioner as also by the Tribunal. Even after having disbelieved the explanation of the assessee, the ITO seems to have given some concession to the assessee on an unwarranted presumption that the ladies of the family must be presumed to have some silver ornaments. Even after having disbelieved the explanation of the assessee, the ITO seems to have given some concession to the assessee on an unwarranted presumption that the ladies of the family must be presumed to have some silver ornaments. Why we say that the presumption was an unwarranted presumption in this case is that even the ladies, who were said to be the owners of these ornaments, did not allege that these ornaments were their wearing apparel. What they stated is, that the ornaments had been got manufactured for being sold, in order to earn some profit. As regards the cash found at the time of search, suffice it to say that the question as to whether the explanation submitted by the assessee should or should not be accepted was essentially a question of fact and on the finding of fact recorded by the revenue authorities and the Tribunal on such a question, it is hardly possible to take the view that any question of law arises. In the result, this application is dismissed with costs assessed at Rs. 150.