Judgment ( 1. ) THIS is an appeal, filed by the assessee under Section 260a of the Income-tax Act, 1961 against an order dated December 2, 2004, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) in I. T. A. No. IT/ss/79/ind of 2002. ( 2. ) THE question that arises for consideration in this appeal is, whether the appeal involves any substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 260a of the Act ? ( 3. ) HEARD Shri P. M. Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellant. ( 4. ) HAVING heard learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the record of the case, I find absolutely no merit in this appeal which merits dismissal in limine. ( 5. ) IT is a search case in the premises of the assessee--a businessman. In this search operation, apart from other, a sum of Rs. 12,62,000 in cash was also seized. It is this seizure of cash which is the subject-matter of this appeal. The question was whether the assessee was able to explain its source and whether it is liable to be taxed in his hands as an income from unexplained source. This question was examined in block assessment cases. The Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held against the assessee and added the amount in his income. However, the learned members of the Tribunal while deciding the appeal deferred resulting in a difference of opinion. Hence, the matter was referred to a Third Member (Vice-President ). By the impugned order, he agreed with one and held that the assessee has failed to prove that the money does not belong to him. Accordingly, the orders of the Assessing Officer/commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) which were against the assessee were upheld. This was the question which was referred to a Third Member by the Tribunal for decision : "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case whether addition of Rs. 12,62,000 on account of cash which was seized during search can be sustained ? 2. As to whether on the basis of transaction of two days as reflected from the documents seized, income of entire block period can be estimated at Rs. 16,87,500 instead of Rs. 2,40,841 (Rs. 12,62,000 -Rs. 10,21,159) which remained unexplained in view of the documents and cash seized ?" ( 6. 2. As to whether on the basis of transaction of two days as reflected from the documents seized, income of entire block period can be estimated at Rs. 16,87,500 instead of Rs. 2,40,841 (Rs. 12,62,000 -Rs. 10,21,159) which remained unexplained in view of the documents and cash seized ?" ( 6. ) IN our opinion, what is really involved in the appeal is a pure question of fact and not any question of law much less a substantial question of law contemplated under Section 260a ibid. The main or only question that is involved is about the source and explanation of Rs. 12,62,000 recovered from the possession of the assessee. It is essentially a question of fact because it is required to be decided on factual explanation and the nature of evidence (oral/documentary) tendered by the assessee in the assessment proceedings before the taxing authorities. It is for the Assessing Officer, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and lastly the Tribunal to go into explanation, its worth, extent, adequacy, reliability and then record a finding as to whether the source for the money seized was properly explained so as to include the same in the hands of the assessee or exclude as the case may be. Largely, therefore, it does not involve any legal interpretation or legal debate as such for deciding this question but it involves appreciation of evidence and its worth. ( 7. ) ANY factual finding once recorded and consistently upheld by the Appellate Tribunal is binding on the High Court while hearing an appeal under Section 260a of the Act. It is only when it is noticed that the finding is de hors the evidence or against any provision of law or perverse to its extreme, that no judicial man can ever reach such a conclusion, that a case for interference in appeal under Section 260a of the Act is called for. Such does not appear to be a case of that nature. ( 8. ) IN our opinion, the Tribunal has gone into the factual niceties of the case with reference to the explanation offered by the assessee in great detail. Such does not appear to be a case of that nature. ( 8. ) IN our opinion, the Tribunal has gone into the factual niceties of the case with reference to the explanation offered by the assessee in great detail. Indeed, the two members who concurred on the factual finding for deciding the issue against the assessee have rightly concluded by upholding the orders of the Assessing Officer/commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that the assessee has failed to discharge the onus that lay on him for want of any material and corroborating evidence on record. This is the categorical finding of fact recorded by the Third Member who concurred with the Accountant Member on this issue : "there has to be some evidence on record to establish it, which onus is not discharged by the assessee. The benefit of set off of Rs. 10,21,159 cannot therefore be given to the assessee in the absence of material on record corroborating it to be trust money. I, therefore, hold that the addition of Rs. 12. 62 lakhs is required to be upheld being cash income from hawala business of Rs. 2,40,841 not disclosed by the assessee and the cash found remained unexplained to the extent of Rs. 10,21,159. I, therefore, hold that on both the grounds, the aggregate addition, that is to be added, be taken as Rs. 12. 62 lakhs Rs. 10,21,159 as unexplained cash plus Rs. 2,40,841 as income from hawala business of money transfer. " ( 9. ) IN our humble view, the aforesaid factual finding cannot be faulted and binds this court. It does not call for any interference involving no substantial question of law as such. ( 10. ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant made a frantic attack/attempt to contend that the finding recorded is bad and/or in any event, in view of the finding so recorded, no case for any addition is made out. Learned counsel then took us to the nature of hawala transactions entered into by the asses-see and wanted us to probe into the factual area. We are afraid that the submission did not impress us as they were not falling in Section 260a jurisdiction. They were outside its purview and hence, we cannot formulate any substantial question of law on any of the submissions pressed into service. We are afraid that the submission did not impress us as they were not falling in Section 260a jurisdiction. They were outside its purview and hence, we cannot formulate any substantial question of law on any of the submissions pressed into service. In this view, the cases cited by the appellants counsel CIT v. Balchand Ajit Kumar , (2004 )186 CTR (MP )419 , [2003 ]263 ITR610 (MP ) and Durga Kamal Rice Mills v. CIT , (2003 )183 CTR (Cal )223 , [2004 ]265 ITR25 (Cal ) are of no avail as they are distinguishable on the facts. ( 11. ) AS a consequence, we find no merit in the appeal. It is dismissed in limine.