R. S. GARG, J. ( 1 ) MR. R. K. Patel, learned Counsel for Assessee. Mr Manish R. Bhatt, learned Counsel for Revenue. ( 2 ) IN relation to Income Tax Appeal No. 2476/ahd/1988 for the Assessment Year 1985-86, the assessee made an application under Section 256 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 that the question proposed by him be referred to the High Court for its opinion. The Tribunal rejected the said application and, therefore, the assessee came to this Court in Income Tax Application No. 56 of 1995 which was finally disposed of by Division Bench of this Court on 10. 10. 1995. The Court held that in the facts and circumstances of the case, question of law does arise, in the opinion of this Court. The application filed under Section 256 (2) was allowed with a direction to the Tribunal to refer the question proposed by the High Court. The Tribunal accordingly, has made the Reference on the question proposed by the High Court. The question reads as -Whether in the facts and circumstances the case, when the explanation offered by directors and relatives of the assessee s company about the nature and source of acquisition of gold ornaments and jewellary admitted by such directors/relatives of their ownership, provisions of Section 69a could be invoked to assess the value of the said gold ornaments and jewellary as income of the assessee of the assessment year relevant to financial year in which the same were found in the locker of the assessee by treating the assessee to be the owner of such ornaments and jewellary ( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for the assessee submits that undisputedly in the lockers which the assessee had taken on lease, certain gold and jewellery etc. were found and the same were proposed to be treated as income from other undisclosed sources, the assessee submitted before the Assessing Officer that the said jewellery or bullions etc. did not belong to the assessee but were property of its directors or relatives of the directors. It was submitted that in the given set of circumstances Section 69a of the Income Tax Act, 1961 would not be applicable because the assessee was submitting probable and plausible explanation. did not belong to the assessee but were property of its directors or relatives of the directors. It was submitted that in the given set of circumstances Section 69a of the Income Tax Act, 1961 would not be applicable because the assessee was submitting probable and plausible explanation. The Assessing Officer did not accept the contention put forward, rejected the plea raised by the directors or their relatives and held that the assessee had failed to discharge its burden, as a consequence, it included value of the jewellery and bullion into income of the assessee in the previous Accounting Year and accordingly, directed payment of the tax. The appeal before the CIT (Appeals) and the second appeal before the Tribunal were proved futile and, therefore, the application under Section 256 (1) was also rejected. He came to this Court, and this Court, under Section 256 (2) issued directions to the Tribunal to refer the question to this Court. Learned Counsel for the assessee submits that from the very frame of the question, it would clearly appear that the explanation offered by the directors and relatives of the assessee company were to be accepted and under the circumstances, Section 69a would not apply. ( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the assessee also took us to the order passed by this Court in Income Tax Application No. 56/95 and submitted that the Court recorded its opinion that, in a given case, application of 69a of the Act in itself would be a question of law. He submits that if interpretation of Section 69a can be applied to the facts of this case, then, the question would be a question of law and will have to be decided in favour of the assessee. He further submits that the High Court, on an earlier occasion, had observed that the Tribunal was apparently in error when it refused to refer the questions of law arising out of its order. He also submits that if the High Court was of the opinion that a question of law does arise, then the question must be taken to be a question of law. He also submits that if the High Court was of the opinion that a question of law does arise, then the question must be taken to be a question of law. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Revenue submits that undisputedly, the High Court had treated the question to be a question of law, because so far as the applicability of Section 69a of the Act is concerned, it would be a question of law. He however, submits that if the foundational facts are not available, and no perversity is shown in the orders passed by the taxing officers or the Tribunal, then Section 69a, though is a question of law, would apply to the facts of the present case and in the facts of the present case, the Tribunal was absolutely justified in holding that the value of the property could be rightly added to the income of the assessee. Section 69a of the Act reads as under: 69a. Where in any financial year the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article and such money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article is not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of acquisition of the money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article, or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the money and the value of the bullion, jewellery or other valuable article may be deemed to be the income of the assessee for such financial year. ( 5 ) A bare reading and understanding of Section 69a makes it clear that where the property described under Section 69a is not recorded in the books of accounts, if any, maintained by the assessee from any source of income and the assessee does not offer any explanation about the nature and source of acquisition of such property, and the explanation offered is not satisfactory in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, then, value of such property would be deemed to be the income of the assessee for such financial year. ( 6 ) SECTION 69a, on one side gives authority to the Assessing Officer to include the value of such property into the income of the assessee for the said financial year, but at the same time gives a respite by providing a chance to the assessee to explain the source of income or explain the nature and acquisition of such property or convince the officer that the property, though was in his possession, but in fact, did not belong to him. If the explanations offered are accepted by the Assessing Officer, then that would be the end of the matter. But in case, the explanation is not accepted, then, the mandate of Section 69a would come into operation and the value of such property namely, bullion, jewellery or other valuable articles would be deemed to be the income of the assessee for such financial year. ( 7 ) IN a given case, if the explanation offered by the assessee is accepted, then that would be a finding of fact because in fact the Assessing Officer is satisfied that the explanation is satisfactory and there is no reason to reject it, but in a case where the explanation is not accepted, the question still would be whether the Assessing Officer was justified in not accepting the explanation and whether on the legal footing such an explanation can be rejected. ( 8 ) ON the foundational facts, when the court presumes some facts or rejects a particular factual aspect, and then records a finding in relation to acceptance of the facts and thereafter proceeds to decide, then, the question of presumption or the inference to be drawn on the strength of the facts would be a question of law. In a given case, if the circumstances show that the one and only one inference could be drawn by the authority/officer/court but the said officer/authority/court draws an inference which is not permisible under the law, then such findings would be perverse and the Appellate/revisional Court would be entitled to set aside the said findings and record its own findings. But in a case where the findings recorded by the Tribunal cannot be shown to be perverse nor can it be argued and proved that the said findings are perverse then, the said findings would not be open to interference under the appellate or revisional jurisdiction. But in a case where the findings recorded by the Tribunal cannot be shown to be perverse nor can it be argued and proved that the said findings are perverse then, the said findings would not be open to interference under the appellate or revisional jurisdiction. ( 9 ) IN the present case, the explanation offered by the assessee was not accepted by the Assessing Officer. He had given cogent reasons for not accepting the explanation and has also given reasons to come to certain conclusions against the interest of the assessee. The said finding has been approved by the CIT (Appeals) also. Once the findings of facts which are even based on presumptions or inferences are confirmed by an Appellate Court which ordinarily, is a court final for the facts, then, the second Appellate Court would not interfere into the said findings unless the findings are shown to be perverse. The jurisdiction of the revisional court would still be circumscribed. If the judicial conscience of the second Appellate Court or the Revisional Court is satisfied that the case on hands would not be a case relating to or touching the very jurisdiction of the authority in arriving at the said findings, then the second Appellate or Revisional Court may not interfere in the matter. In the present case, the dispute all along had been that whether the Assessing Officer was justified in rejecting the explanation. The finding recorded by the Assessing Officer was not only approved by the Commissioner, Income Tax (Appeals) but was even confirmed by the Tribunal. When the subordinate officers and the Tribunal have come to a positive concurrent finding of fact, then, there would be no scope left in favour of the assessee to argue before the High Court that the explanation offered by the assessee ought to have been accepted. ( 10 ) THE question referred to us for our opinion, though within its frame incorporates a question of law but the answer would be depending upon a fact finding enquiry. When the facts are clear and are accepted, then the question of law would disappear and the High Court would not interfere in a matter like the present one, to hold in favour of the assessee that the findings are not proper and yet another view was possible. When the facts are clear and are accepted, then the question of law would disappear and the High Court would not interfere in a matter like the present one, to hold in favour of the assessee that the findings are not proper and yet another view was possible. In our opinion, the Tribunal was absolutely justified in holding against the interest of the assessee. ( 11 ) THE Reference is answered against the interest of the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. It is accordingly disposed of. No costs.