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