Judgment ( 1. ) THIS is an appeal filed by CIT under Section 260a of the IT Act, against an order dt. 26th Sept. , 2000, passed by Tribunal in ITA No. 12/ind/1996 for the block asst. yrs. 1986-87 to 5th Sept. , 1995. ( 2. ) HEARD Shri A. P. Patankar, learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri D. K. Chhabra, learned Counsel for respondent. ( 3. ) HAVING heard learned Counsel for the appellant and having perused record of the case, I do not find any merit in this appeal which deserves dismissal. ( 4. ) THIS appeal only raises a question as to whether Tribunal was right in deleting an addition of Rs. 3,37,501 treating the same to be an income from salary of assessee for the block period in question. The Tribunal by impugned order has come to a conclusion by allowing the appeal of assessee in part by holding that so far as addition of Rs. 3,37,501 in the total income of assessee is concerned, the same is liable to be deleted because it is properly explained. It is against this deletion, the CIT has come up in appeal. ( 5. ) IN our opinion, firstly it is a question of fact and does not call for any interference in appeal under Section 260a ibid. Secondly, once the explanation offered by the assessee explaining its source is accepted by the Tribunal then there is very little scope for interference. It is for the reason that it does not involve any substantial question of law. Thirdly, in the facts of this case, the explanation offered by assessee cannot be said to be either absurd or totally unacceptable. ( 6. ) IT is a search case in the premises of assessee who happened to be a Government servant (District Excise Officer ). In his possession large amount of cash and jewellery was recovered. While framing a block assessment under Section 158bc of the Act, the amount of Rs. 3,37,501 out of total undisclosed income was held to be properly explained being an income from salary. It is for this explanation which found acceptance to the Tribunal and in our opinion rightly, this sum came to be deleted while computing other undisclosed income. ( 7. ) IN our opinion, the reasoning given by the Tribunal while deleting this sum does not call for any interference. It is for this explanation which found acceptance to the Tribunal and in our opinion rightly, this sum came to be deleted while computing other undisclosed income. ( 7. ) IN our opinion, the reasoning given by the Tribunal while deleting this sum does not call for any interference. It being an amount of salary and the TDS returns were filed by disbursing officer, there was no justification on the part of AO to include the amount as income from undisclosed sources. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law. ( 8. ) APPEAL is thus found to have no merit. It is dismissed.