Dr. B.P. Saraf, J.- The following question of law has been referred at the instance of 'the Commissioner by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Gauhati Bench, Gauhati under section 256 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for our opinion % "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper interpretation of Section 68 and 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 the Appellate Tribunal was justified in allowing a set off Rs. 15,000/-on account of intangible additions made in the earlier years against unexplained cash deposit and investment treated as assessee's income from other sources relating to the assessment year 1961-62 ?" The facts relevant for the purpose of deciding the aforesaid question of law may be briefly stated thus: The assessee is an individual. The relevant assessment year is assessment year 1961-62. The assessment of the assessee for the aforesaid year was re-opened by the Income Tax Officer under section 147 (a) of the Income Tax Act. 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). In course of proceeding for re-assessment, the Income Tax Officer, A Ward, Tripura Circle, Agartala (hereinafter referred to as the ITO) found that the assessee had introduced cash credits amounting to Rs. 21,000/- in his books of account in the name of his father-in-law, Shyamacharan Dey. As the assessee could not explain satisfactorily the nature and source of the said amount, the ITO added the same to the income of the assessee as income from other sources. The ITO further found that there was unexplained investment in the construction of a house by the assessee at Dharmanagar. A sum of Rs. 7,600/- was determined to be the unexplained investment during the relevant assessment year and the same was also added to the income of the assessee as unexplained investment. Thus, in aggregate, a sum of Rs.28,600/-was added to the income of the assessee. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax confirmed the addition made by the ITO. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Gauhati Bench, Gauhati (shortly 'the Tribunal'). In the appeal the assessee pleaded his inability to produce, evidence regarding the investment or the deposit. However, it was contended by the assessee as an alternative submission (hat there were intangible additions of about Rs. 9,000/- in the assessment year 1959-60, Rs 10,000/- in the assessment year 1960-61 and Rs. In the appeal the assessee pleaded his inability to produce, evidence regarding the investment or the deposit. However, it was contended by the assessee as an alternative submission (hat there were intangible additions of about Rs. 9,000/- in the assessment year 1959-60, Rs 10,000/- in the assessment year 1960-61 and Rs. 7,000/- in the assessment year 1961-62 It was further stated that there were intangible additions in the assessment year 1958-59 also. It was argued that some credit must be given for these intangible additions made in the past. The Tribunal held that in the context and setting of the relevant facts the assessee has to be given some credit for the intangible additions made in the past. It came to a conclusion that the assessee should be given a credit for a sum of Rs. 15,000/- on that account. Accordingly, a set off was given for Rs. 15.000/- against the additions made of Rs. 28,600/- by the ITO on account of undisclosed deposit and investment. By setting off this amount, the Tribunal reduced the addition made by the ITO to Rs. 13.600/-. The Commissioner of Income Tax applied for a reference and at his instance the Tribunal has referred the aforesaid question of law for our opinion. Mr. S. Deb, learned counsel for the Commissioner, submitted that the Tribunal was not justified in allowing a set off of Rs. 15,000/- on account of intangible additions made in the earlier years against unexplained cash deposit and investment during the relevant assessment year. We have considered the submission. The principles governing set off of intangible additions made in the asse­ssment against unexplained cash credits or unexplained investments are no more res integra. As observed by the Supreme Court in Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. vs. CIT, (1980) 123 ITR 457 (at page 462): "Now it can hardly be denied that when an "intangible" addition is made to the book profits during the assessment proceeding, it is on the basis that the amount represented by that addition constitutes the undisclosed income of the assessee. That income, although commonly described as "intangible" is as much a part of his real income as that disclosed by the account books. It has the same concrete existence. That income, although commonly described as "intangible" is as much a part of his real income as that disclosed by the account books. It has the same concrete existence. It could be available to the assessee as the book profits could be." The nature of intangible additions and the question of their availa­bility for application by the assessee first came up for consideration before the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Lagadapati Subba Ramiah vs. CIT, (1956) 30 ITR 593 where, it was observed: "Once the secret profits had been assessed to tax, it would have been open to the Company to bring those profits into the books and distribute them, or what remained after payment of tax as dividends...............subject to the provisions of the Act, the Revenue Authority has to act in a fair and consistent manner. Having assessed the company on a large sum as its undisclosed income it cannot at the same breath, say that these profits did not in fact exist because they did not appear from the company's books and could not therefore have been available for the payment of dividends. Among common men such an attitude, would be regarded as blowing hot and cold or playing fast and loose." This interpretation was followed by the Madras High Court in Kuppuswami Mudaliar vs. CIT, (1964) 51 ITR 757. It was observed ( at page 762 of the report) "Additions are no doubt made very often on estimate basis. But it can never be said, or at any rate the department cannot contend, that the amount of addition is not the real income but something which the assessee may not have earned. It was observed ( at page 762 of the report) "Additions are no doubt made very often on estimate basis. But it can never be said, or at any rate the department cannot contend, that the amount of addition is not the real income but something which the assessee may not have earned. It is wholly illogical for the department to contend that the addition was only for purpose of taxation and that it should never be taken as true income of the assessee." The Supreme Court in Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co vs. CIT, (1980) 123 ITR 457 referred to the aforesaid decisions and laid down the proposition of law in regard to intangible additions in the following words: "There can be no escape from the proposition that the secret profits or undisclosed income of an assessee earned in an earlier assessment year may canstitute a fund, even though concealed, from which the assessee may draw subsequently for meeting expenditure or introducing amounts in the account books." The following note of caution, however, was added to the aforesaid proposition (at page 463) "The mere availability of such a fund cannot, in all cases, imply that the assessee has not earned further secret profits during the relevant assessment year. It is a matter for consideration by the taxing authority in each case whether the unexplained cash deficits and the cash credits can be reasonably attributed to a pre-existing fund of concealed profits or they are reasonably explained by reference to concealed income earned in that very year. In each case, the true nature of the cash deficit and the cash credit must be ascertained from an over-all consideration of the particular facts and circumstances of the case." There are also a number of other decisions of different High Courts where it has been held that cash credits or investments made in a particu­lar accounting year may in proper cases, be explained with reference to intangible additions made in the past or the same year. However, in view of the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court, we do not think it necessary to cite or discuss the same. However, in view of the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court, we do not think it necessary to cite or discuss the same. The principles that emerge from the decisions can be summarised as follows : 1) Amount represented by 'intangible' additions' to the book profits of an assessee during an assessment proceeding constitutes undisclosed income of the assessee and is as much a part of his real income as that disclosed by his account books. It has the same concrete existence. 2) Income from intangible additions is available to the assessee for meeting expenditure or introducing amounts in his account books. 3) If any unexplained cash deposit or cash credit can reasonably be related to the amount covered by the intangible additions made in the past or in that very year necessary set off may be given by the authorities on that account. 4) In each case, the true nature of the cash deficit or cash credit must be ascertained from an overall consideration of the particular facts and circumstances of the case. So far as the inference drawn by the Tribunal that there is a connection between the intangible additions made in the past and the cash credit entries and the undisclosed investment during the relevant assessment year is concerned, it is well settled that it is a question of fact. In this connection we may refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT vs. S. Nelliappan, (1967) 66 ITR 722 (SC) where despite the finding that there was no direct evidence of any connection between the cash credit entries and the income withheld from the books of account by the assessee the Tribunal inferred that there was a connection between the profits witheld from the books and the cash credit entries, held ".........it cannot be said that the conclusion is based upon speculation." The question sought to be raised in that case, therefore, was held to be a purely one of fact and was not allowed to be raised. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, we are of the clear opinion that the Tribunal was justified in allowing a set off of Rs. 15,000/- on account of intangible additions made in the past against unexplained cash deposit and investment of the assessment year 1961-62. The question referred to us is, therefore, answered in the affirmative and against the revenue.