A. M. SAPRE, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal, filed by the assessee under Section 260a of the IT Act, against an order, dt. 25th April, 2003, passed by learned Tribunal, Indore Bench, in ITA No. 632/ind/1997. The appeal was admitted for final hearing on following substantial question of law :whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that total sum of Rs. 1,80,000 shown by the appellant as agricultural income was not entitled to exempt as agricultural income because the assessee himself has not carried out agricultural operation? ( 2 ) HEARD Shri P. M. Choudhary, learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri R. L. Jain, learned senior counsel with Ku. Veena Mandlik, learned Counsel for the respondent. ( 3 ) THE question relates to asst. yr. 1995-96. In short, the question that arises for consideration is : Whether a sum of Rs. 1,80,000 can be said to be an income from agriculture in the hands of assessee so as to allow him to seek exemption from payment of income-tax. The ITO (AO) held against the assessee whereas, CIT (A) held in his favour. However, the Tribunal by impugned order allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue and restored the views of AO. This is how, the Tribunal dealt with this issue in their order while repelling the contention of assessee :para 7.-We have considered the rival submissions carefully as well as relevant material on record and find force in the contention of learned Departmental Representative. The Privy Council in Raja Musthafa Alikhan v. CIT (1948) 16 ITR 330 (PC) had observed that burden of proving that a particular income was exempt lies on the person who claims the same and this rule has been followed by various Courts later on also. From the particulars submitted by the assessee before AO it becomes clear that no expenditure was shown to have been incurred on labour for ploughing of land, tilling of same and harvesting of the crop, etc. which cast serious doubt whether any agricultural operations were carried out. In case of Prithviraj Chouhan v. Asstt. CIT in ITA Nos. From the particulars submitted by the assessee before AO it becomes clear that no expenditure was shown to have been incurred on labour for ploughing of land, tilling of same and harvesting of the crop, etc. which cast serious doubt whether any agricultural operations were carried out. In case of Prithviraj Chouhan v. Asstt. CIT in ITA Nos. 650, 651 and 652/ind/1996 this Bench had taken a view that Form B-2 and B-1 Khasra which provides for a column for cultivator and his particulars as well as owner separately and thus name of the cultivator is required to be entered in Revenue records separately. From the copy of Form B-1 and B-2 submitted before us, we find that only name given is of Bhumiswami, i. e. , owner of agricultural land and not that of cultivator, i. e. , the assessee, which cast serious doubts whether assessee ever carried out any agricultural operations on this land. From the lease deed, a copy of which is placed at pp. 4 and 5 of the compilation, we find that lease deed is undated which raises suspicion whether this lease deed is genuine or not. It is also very surprising that assessee could generate agricultural income of Rs. 1,80,000 on the piece of agricultural land which was taken on lease only for Rs. 22,000. We also find that CIT (A) wrongly calculated the figure of expenditure as found by AO on the basis of statistics supplied by Director, Research, JNU at Rs. 15,000 whereas such expenditure, if these figures are applied should have been Rs. 68,000 approximately. Learned CIT (A) has given unnecessarily weightage to the fact that assessee's father was agriculturist and owning agricultural implements and tractors, etc. so he might have helped the assessee by lending such implements and providing such other assistance, firstly no such contention was raised before AO and secondly, even before CIT (A) there was no evidence for reaching this kind of conclusion. We also find no force in the contention of learned Authorised Representative that figures obtained from JNU was an opinion of expert and assessee should have been confronted. AO had made enquiries regarding agricultural income and assessee was duty-bound to explain all relevant facts with evidence that he had carried out agricultural operations and generated agricultural income. We also find no force in the contention of learned Authorised Representative that figures obtained from JNU was an opinion of expert and assessee should have been confronted. AO had made enquiries regarding agricultural income and assessee was duty-bound to explain all relevant facts with evidence that he had carried out agricultural operations and generated agricultural income. These figures were obtained from University just to assess how much expenditure is required to be incurred for agricultural operations and assessee has not shown such expenditure. Assessee had merely filed statistics and certificate from some other agriculturists regarding yield of cotton per acre but nowhere effort has been made to explain that assessee had really carried out the agricultural operations. Keeping all these circumstances in view, we agree with the findings of AO that assessee has not carried out any agricultural operations and merely resorted to conversion of his other income into agricultural income. ( 4 ) HAVING heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused record of the case, we are inclined to uphold the aforesaid finding of Tribunal and in consequence, dismiss the appeal. ( 5 ) IN our considered opinion and as rightly urged by the learned Counsel for the respondent on the strength of Section 260a (4) of the Act, the appeal really does not involve substantial question of law and what is framed does not really make out any substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 260a ibid. This Court has jurisdiction to examine even this question at the time of final hearing of the appeal notwithstanding the admission of appeal and framing the question behind the back of respondent at the time of admission. ( 6 ) MERE perusal of aforequoted para 7 of the Tribunal order which dealt with the question framed herein would show that it is essentially an issue of fact. Secondly, the Tribunal did go into the question of fact and found no merit in the same. Thirdly, it was the view of the Tribunal that assessee failed to discharge the burden by showing that income in question does represent an agricultural income. Fourthly, whatever documents assessee had filed in support of his contention were not found adequate for recording finding in his favour and grant an exemption from payment of income-tax. It is clear on mere perusal of aforequoted finding of fact categorically recorded against an assessee. Fourthly, whatever documents assessee had filed in support of his contention were not found adequate for recording finding in his favour and grant an exemption from payment of income-tax. It is clear on mere perusal of aforequoted finding of fact categorically recorded against an assessee. ( 7 ) THIS Court in exercise of appellate powers conferred under Section 260a of the Act cannot upset the finding of fact nor can reappreciate the evidence so as to reverse the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal. In other words, this Court has to accept the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal as being binding while hearing the appeal under Section 260a ibid rather than to examine its correctness on facts. It is only when any finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal is de hors the evidence, or against any provision of law or absurd to the extent that no judicial man can ever reach to such conclusion, interference in Section 260a ibid appeal can be called for. However, such does not appear to be a case of that nature in the facts of this case. ( 8 ) PLACING reliance on several authorities of Supreme Court, reported in CIT v. Late Begum Noor Banu Alladin (1993) 204 ITR 166 (AP), Kamal Kishore and Co. v. CIT (1998) 232 ITR 668 (MP), CIT v. Rayala Corporation (P) Ltd. (1995) 215 ITR 883 (Mad) and CIT v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate (1964) 53 ITR 225 (SC), learned Counsel for the assessee (appellant) contended that certain grounds urged before Tribunal were not taken before AO/cit (A) by Revenue and hence, a question of law is made out entitling this Court to set aside the impugned order. We do not find any merit in this submission. Firstly, no such question of law is framed so as to examine the same from that point of view. Secondly, even assuming that this Court can go into this submission by virtue of powers so conferred upon the High Court by Section 260a then also it does not have any merit. Thirdly and in any event, the basic question being question of fact, the same could be answered only on appreciation of facts and not on law. As observed supra, it was gone into and answered against the assessee by the Tribunal. Thirdly and in any event, the basic question being question of fact, the same could be answered only on appreciation of facts and not on law. As observed supra, it was gone into and answered against the assessee by the Tribunal. In this view of the matter, no help can be taken of all the aforesaid authorities relied on by the learned Counsel for the appellant. In view of foregoing discussion, the appeal is found to be devoid of any merit. It is accordingly, dismissed. No costs. .