Dr. M.K. Sharma, J. — In this reference at the instance of the assessee, the following question has been referred by the Tribunal under section 256 (1) of the Income-Tax Act for the opinion of this Court for the assessment year 1982-83. "Has not the learned Appellate Tribunal committed an error on solely basing its judgment on book adjustment entries made on 31.3.1982 after the close of the previous year to find out the financial position of that year, when the payments were actually and really made on or after 2.4.82 on the encashment of the cheque as found by the lower appellate aut­hority and thereby confirming the addition of Rs.3,43,014 without any corroborative evidence in the hands of the Department that the payments were made on or before 31.3.1982." The facts in this case are that the assessing officer added to the income of the asseseee a sum of Rs. 3,43,014 "being the amount of cash brought into the books of assessee as received from Executive Engineer by cheque on 31-3-82" within the previous year 1981-82 corresponding to the assessment year 1982-83, while the cheque was encashed only on 2.4.82. He came to the conclusion that since the assessee had to incur expenses (as shown in his books) aggrega­ting Rfc3,28,554.00 he brought in the amount of Rs.3,43,014.00 in the guise of the cheque" and added the amount as income from undisclosed source. 2. The assesses contention that the payments for the expenses though paid on encashment of the cheque on 2.4.82, on different dates but recorded on 31.3.82 as the cheque which was encashed actually on 2.4.82, was recorded on 31.3.82 as all the receipts and expenses relate to the accounting year 1981-82, though received or paid after the accounting year as per its method of accounting regularly employed, was not accepted. The assessee being aggrieved went before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who held that the addition of Rs.3,43,014.00 was not justified and therefore deleted the same. 3. In coming to the above decision the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) relied on the vouchers produced for some of the expenses and also method of accounting regularly employed by the assessee and the totality of the aforesaid circumstances was considered Acceptable by him. He also repro­duced in his appellate order, the order of assessment to show that assessee in his cash book has not shown any cash received on 31.3.82. He also repro­duced in his appellate order, the order of assessment to show that assessee in his cash book has not shown any cash received on 31.3.82. It was recorded that "a cheque was received for Rs.3,16,000 on 31.382". He has also referred to the evidence produced on behalf of the assessee to show that expenses actually incurred on 8.12.81 and 6.2.82 was recorded on 31.3.82. 4. The Revenue filed appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) before Income-tax Appellate Tribunal who reversed the order of the CIT (Appeals) and restored the order of the assessing officer in respect of the addition of Rs.3,43,014/- as income from undisclosed source in coming to the finding the Tribunal relied upon the book entries of the assessee as only acceptable evidence and held that no other subsidiary evidence such as voucher etc. could be relied upon. The Tribunal had not gone into the question of the method of accounting regularly employed by the assesses, 5. We are, of the opinion, that the question referred to us as such is not a question of law but following questions of law do arise out of the order of the Tribunal : (i) Whether the learned Tribunal had not erred in law in not considering the subsidiary evidence such as payment vouchers and also in not considering the method of accounting regularly employed by the assessee. (ii) Whether the learned Tribunal had not erred in law in sustaining the ad lition of Rs. 3,43,014/- as income from undiselosed source only on the basis of part of the accounts," 6. We have heard Dr. AK Saraf, learned counsel for the assessee and also Mr. DK Talukdar, the learned Standing Counsel representing the Revenue on the aforesaid questions of law reframed by us. Dr. Saraf submits that the system of the accounting which the assessee was following was the mercantile system of accounting. H; farther submits that there was no intro­duction of unaccounted m >ney on 31 3.82 and that the expenditure incurred has been shown as incurred on 31.3.82 although in fact, actual payments were made after the cheque was actually encashed and that all such expenditure are supported by vouchers. According to the learned counsel, the Income Tax Officer having accepted the expenses incurred as correct was not justified in coming to the conclusion that the expenses were made from some undisclosed sources. According to the learned counsel, the Income Tax Officer having accepted the expenses incurred as correct was not justified in coming to the conclusion that the expenses were made from some undisclosed sources. On the other hand, Mr. Taiukdar submits that cash book and other book maintained by the assessee are primary evidence that paymants have already been incurred by the assessee in respect of those specified items for specified amount and that no other evidence was necessary and accordingly the Income Tax Officer was justified in making the addition of the amount. According to him, on the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Tribunal was justified in reversing the findings of the CIT (Appeals) and restoring the order of the Income Tax Officer. 7. We have considered the rival submission made by the learned counsel of the parties. We have also been taken through the three orders relevant to the case in ban !. Having perused the same and on hearing the counsel we feel that the learned Tribunal was not justified in upholding the order of the Income-tax Officer on the ground that the assessee had produced fabricated evidence in the form of voucher inasmuch as the assessee nas explained the delay in production of the vouchers, which appear from the records of the case. Under such circumstances the finding of the Income-tax Officer that the assessee had produced fabricated evidence in the form of voucher cannot be upheld. In that view of the matter we are satisfied that no unaccounted money .mounting to Rs.3,45,014/- was introduced in the books of the assessee on 31.3.52 It may further be stated that neither the Tribunal nor the Income-tax Officer had gone into the aspect as to what is the system of accounting adopted by the assessee. It appears to us that the expenses should have been debited to the profit and loss account by creating the credit accounts to the creditors. But instead of showing liabilities for the expenses in the balance-sheet the expenses were shown to have been paid on 31.2.82 though actually paid later. The system adopted by the assessee may not be proper but the same, in any manner, does not prove and establish any lack of bonafide on the part of the assessee. But instead of showing liabilities for the expenses in the balance-sheet the expenses were shown to have been paid on 31.2.82 though actually paid later. The system adopted by the assessee may not be proper but the same, in any manner, does not prove and establish any lack of bonafide on the part of the assessee. It appears to us that the findings arrived at by the Income-tax Officer which has been upheld by the learned Tribunal to the effect that the vouchers produced by the assessee were not correct a-d were fabricated evidence are based on conjectures, surmises and suspicion and no relevant material could be pointed out by the said authorities for arriving at such a finding. We are, therefore, of the opinion that it would be too remote and far-fetched, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to hold that the vouchers produced by the assessee were not correct and that they were fabricated evidence and accordingly, we hold that there is no direct nexus between the facts found and conclusion therefrom. 8. It is settled law that the tax authorities having relied on one part of a transaction cannot reject the other part of the same transaction. In the instant case the expenditure shown to have been incurred by the assessee having been accepted by the Income-tax authorities there was no justification on the facts and circumstances of the case not to accept the receipt as disclosed by the assessee. 9. In view of the aforesaid findings we answer the questions of law re-framed by us in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. We however make no order as to cost.