Judgment : F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.) The Revenue has come forward with this appeal challenging the order of the CIT (Appeals) dated 112. 2008 passed in I.T.A.No.1921/Mds/2007 in and by which the order of the CIT(Appeals) dated 25.05.2007 was confirmed. 2. The questions of law that arise for consideration in this appeal are as under:- "[i] Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in deletion of sum of Rs.37,71,931/- being the difference in stock value found? [ii] Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Assessee has discharged burden of proof cast upon him for Rs.11,00,000/- being the advance paid for purchase of land especially as the same was not shown in the Trial Balance? [iii] Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in not considering the fact that the voluntary statement made without any coercion or duress nor retracted given could form basis for the Assessment?" 3. As far as the first question of law is concerned, a perusal of the order of the CIT (Appeals) discloses that the Assessing Authority solely relied upon a letter of the assessee dated 22.03.2005 wherein, the assessee offered a sum of Rs.20,00,000/-for assessment for the year 2005-2006, apart from a sum of Rs.17,71,932/- as stock difference. The CIT(Appeals), after considering the issue, has noted that for arriving at the stock value at the time of survey, the same was valued based on the selling price, while it is the settled law that the closing stock should be adopted at the cost price or the market price, whichever is less. It was also found that if it had been worked out on the basis of the cost price or the market price, the stock deficit of Rs.17,71,932/-could not have been made. 4. As far as the amount of Rs.20,00,000/-offered by the assessee in the letter dated 22.03.2005 is concerned, the CIT(Appeals), had relied upon the decisions reported in (1995) 54 ITD 116 and (2002) ITR (AT) 69 wherein, it was held that taxation was not based on the agreement between the tax-payer and the Revenue and is levied based on the income supported by evidence. The CIT(Appeals)also noted that in respect of a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- offered, except the ipse dixit statement contained in the letter dated 22.03.2005, there was no supporting material evidence to establish that there was really any stock deficiency to the tune of the said value. It was on the above said reasoning, the deletion of a sum of Rs.37,71,931/- came to be made by the CIT (Appeals). As far as the sum of Rs.11,00,000/-which was one other discrepancy noted at the time of survey is concerned, the explanation of the assessee was that the said sum was received from one Mr.Chellappan as advance for the sale of agricultural lands. In support of the said stand, the assessee produced certain documents which related to the sale of agricultural lands stood in the names of J.Rakesh and J.Meena in favour of Mr.Chellappan. The receipt of the said sum was stated to have been shown in the list of trade creditors for which the explanation offered was that the same came to be made due to lack of accounting knowledge. One other material in support of the said stand was the statement of Mr.Chellappan himself, which was produced before the Assessing Authority, which has been noted by the Assessing Authority at page No.7 of his order. 5. As rightly pointed out by the CIT(Appeals), none of the above factors placed before the Assessing Authority were doubted by the Assessing Authority. In fact, it was pointed out that if Mr. Chellappans statement had been doubted by the Assessing Authority, it should have summoned him and put to necessary cross-examination to unearth the truth. It was, therefore, held that in the absence of any such exercise, the explanation offered by the assessee ought to have been accepted. The above reasoning of the CIT (Appeals), in respect of the sum of Rs.11,00,000/-and its deletion, was perfectly in order. In any case, the findings of the CIT(Appeals) on the above two items and its deletion, were based on a detailed consideration of relevant factors and in any event, such conclusions were out and out concerning the factual matrix of the case and we do not find any irregularity or illegality in the above conclusion reached by the CIT (Appeals), which was simply confirmed by the Tribunal, in its order dated 112. 2008. 6. 2008. 6. When we pursued the impugned order of the Tribunal, we find that the Tribunal has simply made a statement to the effect that the CIT(Appeals) recorded ample reasons for deleting various disallowances and that the reliefs were granted only based on valid grounds explained by the assessee, and therefore, there was no necessity to disturb the order of the CIT (Appeals). In this context, we only wish to refer to the following two decisions of the Honble Supreme Court, viz., [i] (1967) 66 ITR 462 (Udhavdas Kewalram Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay City) and [ii}(1972) 86 ITR 44 (Nawabganj Sugar Mills Co. Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax , Delhi and Rajasthan), wherein it has been stated as under and leave it at that. [i] (1967) 66 ITR 462 (Udhavdas Kewalram Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay City) "The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal performs a judicial function under the Indian-tax Act: it is invested with authority to determine finally all questions of fact. The Tribunal must, in deciding an appeal, consider with due care all the material facts and record its finding on all the contentions raised by the assessee and the Commissioner in the light of the evidence and the relevant law." [ii} (1972) 86 ITR 44 (Nawabganj Sugar Mills Co. Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax , Delhi and Rajasthan). " As laid down by this court in Udhavdas Kewalram Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has to act judicially in the sense that it has to consider with due care all material facts and the evidence in favour of and against the assessee and record its finding on all the contentions raised by the assessee and the Commissioner in the light of the evidence and the relevant law. From the discussion contained above it is clear that it cannot be said that the Appellate Tribunal in the case before us has omitted to consider any material fact or any material piece of evidence." (Emphasis added). 7. In such circumstances, the questions of law raised cannot be considered in this appeal, inasmuch as there is no question of law, much less a substantial question of law. The appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.