JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the IT Act"), is directed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, "the ITAT") dated April 16, 2013, and it relates to the assessment year 2008-09. 2. Brief facts, which can be noticed on a perusal of the order impugned and the arguments of the counsel for the appellant, are that in the case of the respondent-assessee a survey under section 133A of the Income-tax Act was carried out at the business premises on November 25, 2009, and during the course of survey some incriminating documents were found, inventorised and impounded, inventory of cash and stock was also prepared. At the time of survey, a statement of the assessee-respondent was also recorded wherein on the basis of impounded loose papers, diaries, documents, etc., he surrendered a total sum of Rs. 8 crores which comprised income of Rs. 2 crores in the assessment year 2007-08 ; Rs. 5 crores for the current year and Rs. 1 crore for the assessment year 2009-10. In the assessment year 2007-08, though the assessee had surrendered Rs. 2 crores but in the return of income an additional income was offered to the tune of Rs. 1.5 crores only and even the Assessing Officer was satisfied and accepted Rs. 1.5 crores and he passed assessment order for the assessment year 2007-08 on December 24, 2009. 3. In the revised return, for the assessment year 2008-09 which is under appeal which the respondent-assessee filed pursuant to the said surrender, he surrendered a sum of Rs. 3 crores only instead of Rs. 5 crores which he admitted during the course of survey. A show-cause notice was issued by the Assessing Officer (for short, "the AO") to the respondent-assessee wherein a query was raised that as to when during the course of survey surrender was made to the tune of Rs. 5 crores, then what was the reason for surrendering only Rs. 3 crores in the revised return filed. It was explained by the assessee before the Assessing Officer that the surrender of Rs. 5 crores was made by him which was not correct as, according to the transactions, in actuality and based on the peak credits and after having gone through the loose papers and documents, the actual surrender comes to lower than Rs. It was explained by the assessee before the Assessing Officer that the surrender of Rs. 5 crores was made by him which was not correct as, according to the transactions, in actuality and based on the peak credits and after having gone through the loose papers and documents, the actual surrender comes to lower than Rs. 3 crores but to maintain peace and not to litigate the matter further, he has offered Rs. 3 crores. He further contended that though the actual surrender on the basis of investment in shares application money, non-verifiable creditors, etc., or transactions recorded in the diary, comes to about Rs. 2.20 crores only but he had additionally surrendered an amount of Rs. 80 lakhs on other defects, transaction in the diary or other transactions in the books of account so as to make the total surrender to the tune of Rs. 3 crores and, according to the assessee, the actual offer of Rs. 3 crores based on the material was proper and, accordingly, prayed for acceptance of the said surrender, however, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied and merely because the assessee had surrendered an amount of Rs. 5 crores, during the course of survey an addition of Rs. 2 crores was made by the Assessing Officer. 4. Dissatisfied with the addition of Rs. 2 crores, as aforesaid, the matter was carried in appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), after analysing the evidence on record and the explanation so offered, gave a further relief of Rs. 1.50 crores and sustained addition to the tune of Rs. 50 lakhs. 5. Dissatisfied with the deletion as well as sustenance, both, i.e., the Revenue as well as the assessee preferred an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, vide order impugned, allowed the appeal of the assessee and further deleted the amount of Rs. 50 lakhs and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue and, thus, the entire addition of Rs. 2 crores stood deleted which is assailed before us by the Revenue. 6. The learned counsel for the Revenue contended that the surrender was voluntary. However, during the previous year relevant to the year under appeal, in the revised return, offer was made only to the tune of Rs. 3 crores as against to Rs. 5 crores without assigning any reason. 6. The learned counsel for the Revenue contended that the surrender was voluntary. However, during the previous year relevant to the year under appeal, in the revised return, offer was made only to the tune of Rs. 3 crores as against to Rs. 5 crores without assigning any reason. She contended that the assessee was well aware of the transactions recorded in the loose papers and other material and after complete satisfaction and deliberations, during the course of survey, the assessee voluntarily offered Rs. 5 crores and there is no reason not to adhere to the said surrender and to wriggle out of the surrender or to restrict the amount at a later point of time. She further contended that no material was placed as to reducing the amount by Rs. 2 crores out of the surrender made by the assessee earlier and surrender ought to have been at Rs. 5 crores, and such reduction is improper. She further contended that the order of the Tribunal is perverse by accepting the total claim of the assessee and no reason is forthcoming by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and, therefore, a substantial question of law arise out of the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. 7. We have considered the arguments of the counsel for the Revenue and have also gone through the impugned order. 8. In our view, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence on record and the evidence placed by the assessee, has accepted the surrender to the tune of Rs. 3 crores which was made in the return of income and is based on appreciation of evidence and it is a finding of fact. The assessee gave an explanation supported by material on record, that on the basis of the documents and whatever was unrecorded in the diary/loose papers/other unverifiable creditors, the total amount of surrender came to the tune of Rs. 2.20 crores only. However, additionally the assessee, on account of the other defects, transactions in the diary or other transactions in the books of account, which might have escaped the attention of the assessee, offered further amount of Rs. 80 lakhs to make the total surrender to the tune of Rs. 3 crores. 2.20 crores only. However, additionally the assessee, on account of the other defects, transactions in the diary or other transactions in the books of account, which might have escaped the attention of the assessee, offered further amount of Rs. 80 lakhs to make the total surrender to the tune of Rs. 3 crores. Admittedly, even the Assessing Officer has not pointed out any evidence or material entered in the loose papers or diaries or incriminating documents which could justify the addition over and above of Rs. 3 crores or even Rs. 5 crores or more. The Assessing Officer has not controverted the working/explanation offered by the assessee while working out surrender at Rs. 3 crores. If the assessee has offered an explanation then it was for the Assessing Officer to highlight the mistakes or to prove that the transactions stated in the loose papers/documents depicted income to the tune of more than Rs. 3 crores or more. On a perusal of the order of the Assessing Officer, we notice that no exercise has been made by the Assessing Officer as to hold that the surrender of Rs. 3 crores made by the assessee was not proper. The explanation was offered by the assessee which was also considered by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who too was partly satisfied with the explanation and sustained the addition of Rs. 50 lakhs by giving relief to the tune of Rs. 1.5 crores. It was the claim of the assessee that the additional surrender made in the assessment year 2007-08 had rotated and constituted a fund and was available with the assessee and, thus, there is a direct nexus of availability of funds. The said amount and the amount of surrender made during this year at Rs. 3 crores was available to the assessee for the investment in the share capital, etc., of Rs. 3,76,89,000 requiring telescoping therein. As we have noticed earlier the Assessing Officer has not found or bothered to found or traced anything additional as a result of survey from the assessee except relying on the recorded statements at the time of survey and, therefore, this view found favour with the two appellate authorities that the funds are arising from the same business and have a direct nexus and the income was invested/utilised during the year under consideration. In our view, the conclusion reached by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is based on the appreciation of evidence and is reached on the basis of finding of fact. It is also a finding of fact admittedly that in the assessment year 2007-08 despite the surrender in the statements of Rs. 2 crores the income was offered at Rs. 1.5 crores only and accepted by the Revenue/Assessing Officer. 9. Thus, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, after appreciation of evidence, has come to the conclusion that the amount of Rs. 1.5 crores, which was surrendered/offered in the assessment year 2007-08, was also available as a fund which came to be used partly in the investment of share capital, creditors or other investments as well as other defects, unverifiable creditors, etc. 10. We may add that if the assessee does not adhere to the surrender made during the course of survey, then it is for the Assessing Officer to bring on record cogent material and other evidences to support the addition rather than rely on statements simpliciter. 11. In view of what we have observed herein above, no question much less substantial question of law can be said to emerge out of the impugned order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and we do not find any infirmity or perversity in the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal so as to call for any interference of this court. In our view, no substantial question of law arise out of the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. 12. Consequently, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed in limine. *******