Judgment G.S.Singhvi, J. 1. The Revenue has filed this appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act"), for determination of what it has described as substantial questions of law. For the sake of reference, the questions framed by the Revenue are reproduced below : "1. Whether the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on the facts in deleting the addition made at Rs. 1,88,480 being unexplained investment in the manufacturing process of the bricks and profits earned on the unrecorded sales thereof ? 2. Whether the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee maintained complete record of manufacturing process especially when admitted by the assessee that no books of account and other record whatsoever was maintained in respect of kiln owned under the name and style of Shiv Shakti Gram Udyog, Larth ? 3. Whether the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that no material was brought on record to the purchase of coal at 315.970 m.t. particularly when bills issued by the seller having signature of the assessee are placed on record and confronted to the assessee under Section 131 of the Act and accepted by the assessee ? 4. Whether the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in admitting the contention of legal heir of the assessee for the first time that the bills are fabricated and did not bear the signatures of the assessee especially when this issue was never raised by the assessee itself during cross-examining Sh. Jeet Singh under Section 131 of the Act ?" Facts : 2 The late Shri Parshotam Lal (hereinafter described as "the assessee") was engaged in the business of manufacture of bricks and sale thereof under the name and style of Tirath Ram Naresh Kumar. He owned two brick kilns in village Sagaran, Tehsil Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur. For the assessment year 1991-92, the assessee filed a return on July 23, 1992, declaring an income of Rs. 86,790. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act at a total income of Rs. 2,52,472 plus agricultural income amounting to Rs. 1,23,220. Vide order dated August 10, 1992, he made addition of Rs. 1,44,429. For the assessment year 1991-92, the assessee filed a return on July 23, 1992, declaring an income of Rs. 86,790. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act at a total income of Rs. 2,52,472 plus agricultural income amounting to Rs. 1,23,220. Vide order dated August 10, 1992, he made addition of Rs. 1,44,429. Subsequently, he initiated proceedings under Section 148 read with Section 147 of the Act on the ground that the assessee had not accounted for coal measuring 315.970 m.t. valued at Rs. 4,98,342 which it had purchased in the name of Tirath Ram Naresh Kumar from Jeet Singh, proprietor of Modern Coal Company, Jalandhar. He also issued notice under Section 131 of the Act to Jeet Singh, who is said to have admitted the sale of coal to the assesses, but at the same time, stated that no payment had been received by him during the accounting year 1990-91. Thereafter, vide order dated March 29, 1996, the Assessing Officer made further addition of Rs. 1,88,480 in the income of the assessee. 3. The assessee challenged order dated March 29, 1996, by filing an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Jalandhar (for short, "the CIT(A)"). During the pendency of the appeal, Shri Parshotam Lal died and his son, Kumar Maini, got himself substituted in his place. By an order dated June 16, 1999, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dismissed the appeal and upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer. However, the second appeal filed by the assessee was allowed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar (for short, "the Tribunal"), which deleted the addition of Rs. 1,88,480 made by the Assessing Officer. 4. Dr. N. L. Sharda argued that the reasons assigned by the Tribunal for upsetting the orders passed by the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) are legally unsustainable and, therefore, order dated March 15, 2002, may be set aside. He submitted that the statement made by Jeet Singh under Section 131 could be used by the Assessing Officer for determining the liability of the assessee in respect of the coal purchased in the name of Tirath Ram Naresh Kumar and the Tribunal committed a serious illegality by refusing to rely on his statement. Dr. He submitted that the statement made by Jeet Singh under Section 131 could be used by the Assessing Officer for determining the liability of the assessee in respect of the coal purchased in the name of Tirath Ram Naresh Kumar and the Tribunal committed a serious illegality by refusing to rely on his statement. Dr. Sharda pointed out that the assessee had not challenged the genuineness of the signatures appearing on the sale bills produced by Jeet Singh and the Tribunal committed a serious error by discarding the same. He then argued that non-payment of the price by the assessee cannot be made a ground for doubting the correctness of the additions made by the Assessing Officer. 5. We have given serious thought to the arguments of learned counsel and have carefully gone through the orders passed by the Assessing Officer, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal, In our opinion, none of the questions framed by the Revenue can be treated as a substantial question of law requiring determination by this court. A reading of order dated March 29, 1996, passed by the Assessing Officer shows that he had made additions of Rs. 1,88,480 to the income of the assessee on the basis of the statement made by Jeet Singh under Section 131 of the Act, 17 bills dated December 24, 1990, produced by him, the fact that purchase of 315.970 m.t. coal had not been shown in the books of account maintained by the assessee and the presumed manufacture of bricks by use of that quantity of coal. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) confirmed the additions by recording the following observations : "There is no dispute about the fact that Modern Coal Co. had issued certain sales bill showing sale of 315.970 m.t. of coal to the proprietary concern of the assessee. There is also no dispute that these bills are not reflected in the books of account of the assessee. The bills show that these were signed by Shri Parshotam Lal Maini in token of having purchased and received the goods as deposed by Shri Jeet Singh of Modern Coal Co. Shri Jeet Singh confirmed that this sale was made on credit basis at railway site where the bills were also prepared and the signatures of Shri P. L. Maini was obtained as per normal practice at that time. Shri Jeet Singh confirmed that this sale was made on credit basis at railway site where the bills were also prepared and the signatures of Shri P. L. Maini was obtained as per normal practice at that time. This clearly shows that coal had been purchased by the assessee which is not reflected in the books of account. It is not material from the assessees point of view whether such sales transactions are reflected in the books of Modern Coal Co. or not as it is for the Assessing Officer of Modern Coal Co. to take action against Modern Coal Co., if they made sales out of books of account. Further, in this case the sales were actually reflected in the books of account of Modern Coal Co., which is clear from the fact that it was Sh. V. K. Nagpal, Income-tax Officer, Ward-2, Hoshiarpur, assessing Modern Coal Co., who had informed (vide his letter No. 260 dated May 21, 1993), the Assessing Officer about these sales transactions on the basis of information available in the assessment record of Modern Coal Co. These bills were also supplied by the Assessing Officer of Modern Coal Co. to the Assessing Officer of the assessee. In these circumstances, the self-serving affidavit of Sh. Kumar Maini or the arguments of the assessee that no coal was purchased from Modern Coal Co. cannot be accepted. The Assessing Officer has been very fair in so much as that he did not make the total addition of the unaccounted purchases made by the assessee which would have come to Rs. 4,98,342. The Assessing Officer has only estimated the investment in the coal, manufacturing process and the freight to the extent of Rs. 1 lakh and added the net profit of 10 per cent, on estimated sale of bricks manufactured out of alleged coal amounting to Rs. 88,480. The estimate of the number of bricks manufactured is on scientific basis and was calculated after ascertaining the ratio of number of bricks manufactured vis-a-vis consumption of coal. In these circumstances, the addition of Rs. 1,88,480 made by the Assessing Officer was fair and justified. In view of this, the addition of Rs. 1,88,480 made by the Assessing Officer is upheld and the appeal is dismissed." 6. In these circumstances, the addition of Rs. 1,88,480 made by the Assessing Officer was fair and justified. In view of this, the addition of Rs. 1,88,480 made by the Assessing Officer is upheld and the appeal is dismissed." 6. On a consideration of the entire record, the Tribunal deleted the additions by assigning the following reasons : "(1) The assessee had disputed the genuineness of the bills and no evidence was available before the Assessing Officer for accepting those bills as correct. (2) The assessee had denied that he had any dealing with Modern Coal Company two years prior to the assessment year 1991-92 and in the subsequent years. (3) The details of the bricks manufactured and sold during the year 1991-92 were furnished before the sales tax authorities which were accepted as correct. (4) It was unusual for Jeet Singh, proprietor of Modern Coal Company, to have supplied 315.970 m.t. coal without receiving any payment. Not only this, even after issuance of notice by the Assessing Officer under Section 131, and during the pendency of the appeals before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal, he did not demand payment in lieu of the coal allegedly supplied to Tirath Ram Naresh Kumar." 7. The Tribunal rejected the theory of the presumed manufacture of 15,80,000 bricks out of the alleged coal purchased from Modern Coal Company by recording the following reasons : "On a perusal of the consumption of coal, bricks manufactured and bricks sold, the chart is contained at page 6 of the paper book. It is observed that the assessee in the assessment year under appeal had shown the coal consumption at 366.5 m.t. as compared to the coal consumption in the subsequent two years, i.e., the assessment years 1992-93 and 1993-94 of 355.7 m.t. and 304.8 m.t, respectively. Similarly, the assessee has shown the bricks manufactured in the assessment year under appeal numbering 18,35,000 and whereas in the subsequent two assessment years, viz., 1992-93 and 1993-94, numbering 19,80,000 and 15,20,000, respectively. Similarly, the bricks sold in the assessment year under appeal numbering 19,33,000 and two subsequent assessment years, the bricks sold are numbering 17,63,000 and 15,54,000, respectively. Similarly, the assessee has shown the bricks manufactured in the assessment year under appeal numbering 18,35,000 and whereas in the subsequent two assessment years, viz., 1992-93 and 1993-94, numbering 19,80,000 and 15,20,000, respectively. Similarly, the bricks sold in the assessment year under appeal numbering 19,33,000 and two subsequent assessment years, the bricks sold are numbering 17,63,000 and 15,54,000, respectively. The Department has not stated that the capacity of the kiln to manufacture bricks is about 35 lakhs or so because if we add 15,80,000 bricks allegedly manufactured by the assessee out of the alleged purchase of coal 315.970 m.t., the total bricks manufactured in the assessment year under appeal comes to approximately 34 lakhs, which facts have strenuously been disputed by the learned authorised representative of the assessee." 8. In our opinion, the Tribunals appreciation of facts and circumstances brought on record does not suffer from any legal infirmity and the mere possibility that a different view can be taken by this court is not sufficient for restoration of the additions made by the Assessing Officer. 9. In the premise aforesaid, we hold that the questions framed by the Revenue cannot be treated as substantial questions of law within the meaning of Section 260A of the Act. 10. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.