P. S. DHILLON, J.M.: CIT, Amritsar has made this reference application under s. 256(1) of IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act ). In this application, it is stated that following question arising out of oder of Tribunal dt. 31st July, 1985 in ITA No. 402 ASR/1984, are question of law and, therefore, these are to be referred to Hon ble High Court for its opinion and statement of case of be drawn up: "Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, order of Tribunal in dismissing appeal as time barred was not harsh in fasts and circumstances prevailing in first fortnight of June, 1984 in Amritsar and whether time filing appeal could have been extended by period curfew remained imposed in City?" "Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was correct in law in cancelling whole of penalty of Rs. 64,545 levied under s. 271(1)(c) of Act even on merits?" "Whether on facts and circumstances of case, Tribunal was justified in dismissing application for condonation of delay filed by ITO holding that of delay filed by ITO holding that no sufficient cause was shown? " relevant facts in brief are that assessee is registered firm. assessee s source of income is form purchase and sale of yarn. assessee filed return of income for asst. yr. 1975-76, declaring income of Rs. 13,933. ITO initiated penalty proceeding under s. 271(1)(c) of Act, before completion of assessment at Rs. 71,025 on account of undisclosed investments. break up of additions made by ITO is as under: (a) Cost of unexplained stock of 430 Kgs. yarn Rs. 33,600 (b) Cost of 50 Kgs. being unexplained yarn Rs. 5,400 (c) Cost of unexplained stock of 350 Kgs. yarn Rs, 32,025 Total Rs. 71,025 assessee filed appeal before AAC who reduced income by Rs. 6,480 vide his order dt. 10th Jan., 1980. He also deleted addition of Rs. 33,600 (supra) made by ITO for reasons, stated in his order in quantum of appeal. In further appeal, assessee contested remaining additions in Tribunal. Tribunal deleted addition of Rs. 32,025 in respect of 350 kgs. of year mentioned in (c) above. However, Tribunal sustained addition for cost of 150 kgs. (supra) at Rs. 5,400 as well as woollen yarn pledged on 31st March, 1975 to Bank of Baroda, which Tribunal held, had come out of stocks pertaining to period form 5th June, 1974 to 9th Dec., 1974. Tribunal sustained in addition of Rs. 5,400 (supra) for reason mentioned in its order in paras No. 5 and 6, while addition of Rs. 27,120 was confirmed for reasons in paras 3 and 4 of its order. However, ITO as we have mentioned above, initiated penalty proceedings before completion of assessment and, therefore, he issued notice under s. 271(1)(c)/274 of Act show to cause that why assessee should not be penalised for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. assessee offered explanation, which was rejected by ITO for reasons mentioned his order and, therefore, imposed penalty for sum of Rs. 64,545 on grounds mentioned in his order, inter alia that quantum of penalty to be computed with reference to law prevailing on date, when Act was committed i.e. date on which return concealing income was filed. Reliance was placed on decisions in case of CIT vs. Ram Chand Kundan Lal Sharaf (1975) 98 ITR 474 (MP) and CIT vs. Bhan Singh Buta Singh (1974) 95 ITR 562 (Pb). ITO in view of above reasons, imposed penalty of Rs. 64,545 in giving effect to order of AAC in quantum of appeal. Further in appeal AAC deleted penalty and, thereby allowed appeal of assessee for reasons mentioned in his order in para number 8. Revenue being further aggrieved for deduction of penalty imposed by ITO, preferred appeals before Tribunal. Tribunal on hearing parties and going through record dismissed appeal of Revenue for reasons mentioned in its order from paras 6 to 8.2. Department being further aggrieved has preferred this reference application. Shri Sud, ld. Departmental Representative contends that aforesaid questions are questions of law and, therefore, these are to be referred to Hon ble High Court for its opinion. On other hand, Shri Khanna, ld. counsel assessee, contends that order of Tribunal is self-evident and its findings on issue in questions mentioned above are pure findings of fact. He further contends that each day of delay is to be explained and in this case it is not explained. Therefore, answer to question No. 1 is self evident and pure finding of fact. He further, contends that each day of delay is to be explained and finding of Tribunal is that it is not explained, therefore, its findings do not give any occasion for raising any question of law as issues coming out of such findings are academic. Reliance is placed on decision of Supreme Court in case of J. B. Advani & Co. (P) Ltd. vs. R. D. Shah, CIT (1969) 72 ITR 395 (SC) and on decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of CIT vs. Baij Nath (1984) 43 CTR (P&H) 214: (1984) 148 ITR 135 (P&H). regarding question No. 3 ld. counsel for assessee contends that whether delay is to be condoned or not, answer to it is pure finding of fact, because delay cannot be condoned, if sufficient cause and reason are not show. answer is that, it is pure finding of fact. In rebuttal, Shri Sud, ld. Departmental Representative has nothing to say, therefore, contention of ld. counsel for assessee (supra) has gone unrebutted. We have heard rival contentions and gone through record before us. As it is evident from findings of Tribunal that Tribunal has decided case on merits. finding of Tribunal that on merits shows that Tribunal has arrived at conclusion for confirming order of AAC for deleting penalty on appreciation of finding of Tribunal is pure finding of fact and as such question Nos. 1 and 2 supra have become sufficiently academic. However, we feel it our duty to deal with question Nos. 1 and 2 independently. Question No. 1 is liable to be rejected on ground that firstly, it is argumentative question and therefore, it cannot be held as question of law. Second limb of it, at most is that whether on facts and circumstances of case, delay to be condoned. answer to questions that whether delay is to be condoned is pure finding of fact. delay can be condoned if sufficient cause is shown. It is settled law that answer to question: whether sufficient cause is shown is pure finding of fact. It is also settled law that each day delay is to be explained and if explanation offered, found by Tribunal to this extent is pure finding of fact. Reliance is placed on decision of Hon ble Supreme Court i case of J. B. Advani & Co. (P) Ltd. vs. R. D. Shah, CIT (1969) 72 ITR 395 (SC). Further issue of condonation of delay in filing appeal before Tribunal, came before it in case of CIT, Amritsar vs. M/s Budh Singh Harbans Singh, Amritsar R.A. No. 135 (Asr)/1985 where Tribunal vide its order dt. 11th Dec., 1985, decided in favour of assessee and against Revenue and, thereby rejected reference application of deptt. For same reasons, we hold that question No. 1 and 3 are not referable questions to Honourable High Court for its opinion. Now we have to decide, whether question No. 2. (supra) is referable to High Court for its opinion. answer to this question on merits is self explanatory and based on appreciation of material on record. Therefore, we hold that question No. 2 is not at all referable because it is not question of law, rather question fact. Moreover, whether there is concealment of income, it is settled law that answer to it by Tribunal is pure finding of fact. In view of our above discussions and reasons thereto, we hold that no questions raised by Department and mentioned above and thereby, decline to draw Statement of Case. In result, reference application is dismissed. *** COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. J.J. INVESTMENT