ORDER Harsha Devani, J. 1. The appellant revenue in this appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") has challenged the order dated 5.8.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'D' Bench, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in ITA No. 752/Ahd/2009 by proposing the following question, stated to be a substantial question of law:-- "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case in law Appellate Tribunal has erred in deleting addition of Rs. 17192996/- which was made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of voluntarily disclosure made by the assessee in his statement, recorded on oath during the course of survey proceedings and given by the assessee after verification of his books of accounts and duly concerned with his Chartered Accountant?" 2. The assessment year is 2007-08 and the relevant accounting period is 1.4.2006 to 31.3.2007. The assessee is assessed as an individual. The department conducted a survey of his group concerns on 2.2.2007. During the course of survey, the assessee's statement came to be recorded under section 133A(3)(iii) of the Act whereby he had allegedly admitted total unaccounted income of all group concerns and family members during the relevant financial year to be Rs. 3,12,00,000/- after analysing the books of account and consulting his Chartered Accountant. The statement included cash to the tune of Rs. 3,07,629/- found in the course of survey. The assessee thereafter, filed return of income on 31.10.2007 admitting income of Rs. 98,07,272/- along with profits and gains from business of Rs. 98,92,240/-. 3. The Assessing Officer took up the matter in scrutiny and sought for reasons for understating income of Rs. 2,13,07,700/- which was stated to be an unaccounted income. During the course of survey, the assessee replied that out of the disclosure made during the survey he had admitted a sum of Rs. 1,04,11,752/- which was reduced to Rs. 98,92,240/- after claiming depreciation. He also emphasized that there was no business activity carried out in the last three years and that the income in question had been disclosed as per the relevant cash book and gross receipts. The Assessing Officer framed a regular assessment on 27.6.2008 wherein he placed reliance upon the assessee's statement made during the course of survey and added a sum of Rs. 2,75,89,768/-. This amount was reduced by an amount of Rs. The Assessing Officer framed a regular assessment on 27.6.2008 wherein he placed reliance upon the assessee's statement made during the course of survey and added a sum of Rs. 2,75,89,768/-. This amount was reduced by an amount of Rs. 1,03,87,772/- which had been declared as unaccounted income and addition of Rs. 1,71,92,996/- came to be made. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who found that the impounded material being Annexure BF-1 to BF-10 did not indicate earning of unaccounted income of assessee of Rs.3,12,00,000/-. The impounded material only disclosed earning of additional income to the tune of Rs.1,43,68,982/-. That out of such income of Rs. 1,43,68,982/- indicated by the impounded materials, a sum of Rs.42,15,000/- had been shown as income of Vimal Poddar (HUF) and the balance amount of Rs. 1,04,11,752/- had been shown by the assessee in his return of income. It was the case of the assessee that during the course of survey proceedings the officers had shown seized material which disclosed income out of transactions to the tune of Rs. 2,85,00,000/- and under this impression, at the time of survey, without proper analysis he had accepted the income of Rs. 3,12,00,000/-. That upon receipt of xerox copies and making analysis of the record, it was found that the total receipt was only Rs. 1,44,00,000/- including the opening balance and the payments are approximately of Rs. 1,38,00,000/- only. The Commissioner (Appeals), after appreciating the material on record, found that the true undisclosed income of the assessee which was earned during the year under consideration upto the date of survey, that is, 2.2.2007 was only to the extent of Rs. 1,43,68,982/- and not Rs. 3,12,00,000/- as declared by the assessee as recorded during the survey. He further observed that the statement was recorded on the basis of documents found during the survey and the documents clearly showed the true extent of undisclosed income as Rs. 1,43,68,982/- which had been duly disclosed by the assessee both in his individual capacity (Rs. 1,04,11,752/-) and in the hands of his HUF (Rs. 42,15,000/-). The Commissioner (Appeals) was, accordingly, of the view that no addition can be made of the difference between the sum disclosed in the statement and the sum declared in the return of income and, accordingly, allowed the ground of appeal. 1,04,11,752/-) and in the hands of his HUF (Rs. 42,15,000/-). The Commissioner (Appeals) was, accordingly, of the view that no addition can be made of the difference between the sum disclosed in the statement and the sum declared in the return of income and, accordingly, allowed the ground of appeal. The revenue carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal which concurred with the findings recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the appeal. 4. Mrs. Mauna Bhatt, learned senior standing counsel for the appellant, reiterated the findings recorded by the Assessing Officer and submitted that the Assessing Officer had rightly held that the unaccounted income was to the tune of Rs. 3,12,00,000/-, as disclosed by the assessee during the course of survey, and was, therefore, justified in making addition of Rs. 1,71,92,996/- accordingly. It was submitted that the disclosure made by the assessee being voluntary, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal were not justified in setting aside the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 5. The facts are not in dispute. During the course of survey, the assessee had made a statement under section 133A(3)(iii) of the Act declaring the undisclosed income of all group concerns to be Rs. 3,12,00,000/-. However, subsequently upon ascertaining from the impounded material, the assessee found that the undisclosed income was to the tune of Rs. 1,43,68,982/- and declared income to that extent, partly in his individual capacity and partly in the hands of his HUF. The Assessing Officer made the addition on the basis of the statement made during the course of survey, despite the fact that the addition was not based upon any material found during the course of survey. The Commissioner (Appeals), upon appreciation of the material on record, found that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was not backed by any supporting material indicating any undisclosed income to the extent of the addition. The Tribunal, upon re-appreciation of the evidence on record, concurred with the findings of fact recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals). 6. Thus, the Tribunal has based its findings upon the concurrent findings of fact recorded by it upon appreciating the evidence on record which indicate that, except for the statement recorded during the course of survey, there was no evidence on record to establish that there was any other undisclosed income in support of the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Thus, the Tribunal has based its findings upon the concurrent findings of fact recorded by it upon appreciating the evidence on record which indicate that, except for the statement recorded during the course of survey, there was no evidence on record to establish that there was any other undisclosed income in support of the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Under the circumstances, the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal being based upon the findings of fact recorded by it upon appreciation of the evidence on record, in the absence of any perversity being pointed out therein, the impugned order does not give rise to any question of law, much less, a substantial question of law warranting interference. The appeal, therefore, fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.