JUDGMENT : B.L. Hansaria, C.J. - At the behest of the assessee, the following question has been referred to this court, u/s 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has rightly sustained the orders of the Income Tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax treating Rs. 50,000 as unexplained investment ?" 2. The basic facts giving rise to the question is that the assessee was a partner of the firm, M/s. Krishna Steel Industries, Rajgangpur. A sum of Rs. 50,000 was found deposited in the name of the assessee in the firm on April 11, 1973. She was asked to explain the source of the investment and she stated that the amount came by way of loan from one A. Agrawal alias Arjun Prasad Bajoria of Calcutta and a confirmation letter signed by Shri Bajoria was filed before the Income Tax Officer. The Income Tax Officer accepted the explanation. The aforesaid Bajoria was required to state before the Income Tax Officer in connection with the Income Tax proceeding of his own case as to whether he had advanced a sum of Rs. 50,000 to the assessee. He denied this. He also denied having issued any confirmatory letter to the assesse'e. iP view of these statements, the assessment of the petitioner was reopened and she was asked to explain the transaction again. This time, the explanation given by the assessee was that one Muralilal Kedia, son of S. R. Kedia, who was previously the general manager of Orissa Cement Limited in which concern the husband of the petitioner was also serving as an officer, had approached A. P. Bajoria for a loan and the latter arranged the loan from L. N. Sharaf by standing surety. It was further stated by the assessee that, at the instance of Muralilal Kedia, a confirmatory letter was given by Shri Bajoria. In support of this stand, the assessee filed an affidavit of Bajoria dated June 10, 1978. A confirmatory letter signed by L. N. Sharaf was also furnished. The Income Tax Officer examined Arjun Prasad Bajoria and L. N. Sharaf. Taking all the facts and circumstances into consideration, the officer did not believe the explanation of the assessee and, as such, added a sum of Rs. 50,000 to the income of the assessee. A confirmatory letter signed by L. N. Sharaf was also furnished. The Income Tax Officer examined Arjun Prasad Bajoria and L. N. Sharaf. Taking all the facts and circumstances into consideration, the officer did not believe the explanation of the assessee and, as such, added a sum of Rs. 50,000 to the income of the assessee. An appeal was preferred against the said order before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner wherein it was noticed that, in the balance-sheet filed with the original return, the loan was shown to have been taken in the name of Bajoria Engineering Co. and a letter of confirmation was also signed by Arjun Prasad Bajoria on behalf of Bajoria Engineering Co. and the story of the loan having been taken from L. N. Sharaf came later when Arjun Prasad Bajoria made denial of having advanced any loan to the assessee. It was noted that L. N. Sharaf had filed a return of his income after four years of the due date. The shortage of capital of L. N. Sharaf to lend Rs. 50,000 was also taken note of. The non-examination of Muralilal Kedia also weighed with the authority. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner dismissed the appeal. In further appeal, the Appellate Tribunal has confirmed the finding of the Appellate Assistant, Commissioner. 3. The question referred to us is principally a question of fact--the same being whether the sum of Rs. 50, 000 was an unexplained investment of the assessee or was by way of receipt from another source. It has been held in Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal, Calcutta Vs. Smt. Anusuya Devi that the High Court is not bound to answer a question merely because it is raised and referred. It has been further pointed out that the High Court may decline to answer a question of fact. The submission of Shri Ray, however, is that the finding arrived at by the learned Tribunal is not sustainable, inter alia, because the same is based on non-examination of Muralilal Kedia who was subsequently examined in the penalty proceeding and which has terminated in favour of the assessee. The reassessment order, however, shows that nothing had prevented the assessee from examining Muralilal Kedia in the proceeding, and if she did not do so, we cannot find fault with the taxing officer. The reassessment order, however, shows that nothing had prevented the assessee from examining Muralilal Kedia in the proceeding, and if she did not do so, we cannot find fault with the taxing officer. In this connection, we would also point out that so far as a finding of fact is concerned, it is for the Tribunal to arrive at the same by applying the test of human probabilities. It has been held in Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal II Vs. Durga Prasad More that the decision of the final fact-finding authority is made conclusive by law. From the materials placed before us, we cannot say that the finding is such as can be regarded to be perverse as good reasons have been given to regard the sum of Rs. 50,000 as an unexplained investment of the assessee. 4. It is then submitted that, to do justice, we should, in exercise of the powers u/s 258 of the Income Tax Act, refer the matter to the Appellate Tribunal for the purpose of incorporating in the statement of the case the finding relating to the penalty proceeding. We are, however, not persuaded in accepting this submission since, according to us, the finding arrived at in an assessment proceeding cannot be assailed on the basis of the view taken in the penalty proceeding. 5. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the question referred to us is answered in the affirmative, i.e., against the assessee. B.N. Dash, J. 6. I agree.