ORDER 1. The following question of law was referred to the High Court: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the cost of uninstalled machinery of Rs 14,71,833 is to be taken into account in the computation of the capital for computing the relief under Section 80-J of the Act." 2. The High Court answered the question in favour of the assessee relying on the decision in the case of CIT v. Cibatul Ltd.l This judgment has been approved by this Court in the case of CIT v. Alcock Ashdown and Co. Ltd.2 In view of the aforesaid, the appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Sought by the High Court of its view on the basis of her evidence. The explanation offered by the appellant has not been accepted by the High Court by invoking proviso to Section 13(1) (e). The High Court has opined that since the amount allegedly received by the appellant from his mother-in-law had "not been intimated in accordance with the provisions of law", his explanation is not acceptable and the appellant would be deemed to have committed criminal misconduct within the meaning of Section 13(2) of the 1988 Act. We are constrained to observe that the High Court was dealing with an appeal against acquittal. It was required to deal with various grounds on which acquittal had been based and to dispel those grounds. It has not done so. Salutary principles while dealing with appeal against acquittal have been overlooked by the High Court. If the appreciation of evidence by the trial court did not suffer from any flaw, as indeed none has been pointed out in the impugned judgment, the order of acquittal could not have been set aside. The view taken by the learned trial court was a reasonable view and even if by any stretch of imagination, it could be said that another view was possible, that was not a ground sound enough to set aside an order of acquittal. 10. We have carefully perused the explanation given by the appellant regarding the source of receipt of Rs 50,000 and Rs 40,000 which amounts alone were canvassed before us to be beyond the "known sources of income" of the appellant and find ample support for his explanation in the prosecution evidence itself. 10. We have carefully perused the explanation given by the appellant regarding the source of receipt of Rs 50,000 and Rs 40,000 which amounts alone were canvassed before us to be beyond the "known sources of income" of the appellant and find ample support for his explanation in the prosecution evidence itself. The evidence of PW 19, PW 27, PW 30.and PW 31 clearly support the explanation given by the appellant. The appellant had thus, discharged the burden of explaining the sources of those amounts. Their nonmention in the property statement of the appellant would have no consequence because Explanation to Section 13(1)(e) is not to be read as an Explanation to Section 5(1)(e) of the 1947 Act. 11. Thus, for what we have said above, we find that judgment of the High Court reversing a well-merited order of acquittal recorded by the trial court cannot be sustained. That judgment is, accordingly, set aside and the order of the trial court is, hereby, restored. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds shall stand discharged. Fine, if paid, shall be refunded to the appellant. 12. The appeal is, accordingly allowed.