JUDGMENT judgment of court was delivered by S. Ravindra Bhat J.-In these appeals, Revenue is aggrieved by common order of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ("the ITAT"), dated December 3, 2010, in IT (SS) No. 48/Del/2006 and IT (SS) A. No. 85/Del/ 2006. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal had affirmed findings of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (hereafter referred to as "the CIT(A)") in regard to certain amounts originally added in course of block assessment proceedings by Assessing Officer ("the AO"). brief facts are that assessee's premises were searched pursuant to which notice under section 153A of Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as "the Act") was issued. assessee, in response, filed his block return declaring undisclosed income to tune of Rs. 26,70,540. Notice in course of these proceedings was issued and, subsequently, on May 31, 2005, Assessing Officer framed assessment. This order included addition in respect of sum of Rs. 107 lakhs under section 69C of Act pertaining to unexplained purchase of residential property. Other amounts too were added. assessee's appeals were allowed in part in that addition of Rs. 39,47,500 under section 69C and Rs. 5,00,000 under section 69 and further sum of Rs. 30 lakhs towards unexplained expenditure was affirmed. Both Revenue and assessee appealed. Revenue's appeals were rejected by impugned order, barring affirmation of small amount of Rs. 6,93,000. assessee's appeals were, however, allowed. first question sought to be urged is with respect to deletion of sum of Rs. 1 crore directed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and upheld by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. facts pertaining to these are that assessee was involved in transactions in respect of two immovable properties. He had purchased property, i.e., D123, Anand Niketan, New Delhi and company in which he had substantial interest had sold another property, 167 Golf Links, New Delhi (hereafter referred to as "the Golf Links property"). search operations extended to his premises as well as some co-owners of Anand Niketan property. Assessing Officer, after considering records, held that value of property purchased, i.e., D-123, Anand Niketan was not truly disclosed. In doing so, Assessing Officer took note of statements made and materials gathered in search of co-owners. important consideration which weighed with Assessing Officer in concluding that amounts were liable to be taxed under section 69C was fact that purchaser of Golf Links property, one Sh. Arjun Khosla in course of his statement did not support assessee's plea with respect to having paid amounts in cash. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in his order noted that Assessing Officer's order reflected examination of only one document. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), therefore, after analysing other documents, i.e., A-1 to A-39 which emanated from office premises of company in which assessee had substantial interest, i.e., M/s. Regal Flats P. Ltd. as well as documents A-12 and A-20, took note of entirety of transactions and inferred as follows: "7.7 Assessing Officer has taken statement on oath of Mr. Arjun Khosla and his denial regarding payment of Rs. 1 crore cash is perfectly in line with this type of transaction being recorded all over country. His statement regarding non-payment of Rs. 1 crore runs counter to entries found in cash book of company which was entered on March 24, 2005, in normal course of writing of cash book at page 60. statement of Mr. Arjun Khosla is obviously motivated as market value of property of Golf Links would definitely be not at Rs. 1.55 crores for house built on 375 sq. yard of plot at most expensive locality of Delhi. bona fide of assessee in this case is proved to large extent through entries found in cash book, in diary and also in statement of assessee recorded. 7.8 Any survey or other action on or near date of search on May 13, 2003, on Mr. Arjun Khosla could have helped Department in ascertaining truth. Survey under section 133A on office premises of company, search under section 132 at residence of assessee and at residence of Ms. Mangla Sood, one of co-owners of property D-123, Anand Niketan, provide enough evidence and material in hands of Income-tax Department to arrive at impartial decision regarding taxability of cash amount of Rs. 1.07 crores. In hands of Ms. Mangla Sood, Assessing Officer has already accepted it as sale consideration of property No. D-123, Anand Niketan. In case of assessee, I give finding that Rs. 1 crore has been received as cash by assessee from his own company, M/s. Regal Flats Pvt. Ltd., on account of sale of property No. 167, Golf Links, Delhi. Entries found in cash book (A-12 as discussed above), impounded in course of survey under section 133A cannot be ignored by Department. Assessing Officer should have examined all papers from annexure A-1 to annexure A-39 before giving his finding in assessment order since material found and impounded from office premises of company, M/s. Regal Flats Pvt. Ltd., provide substantive evidence, same should be taken as true in accordance with section 132(4A) of Income-tax Act." Income-tax Appellate Tribunal noticed that documents presented before it which were part of record before Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) showed that cash receipt of Rs. 1 crore was reflected in books along with sale of Golf Links property and on March 24, 2003, there was entry on credit side of cash book regarding payment of cash to purchaser of other property as imprest. corresponding entry of balance-sheet of Ms. Regal Flats Pvt. Ltd. as on March 31, 2003, i.e., Rs. 100 lakhs was shown on assets side as imprest to director. Income- tax Appellate Tribunal further held that: "In balance-sheet of M/s. Regal Flats Pvt. Ltd. as on March 31, 2003, copy of which is available at page 75 of assessee's paper book, amount of Rs. 100 lakhs has been shown on assets side as imprest to its director. As per assessment order of M/s. Regal Flats Pvt. Ltd. for assessment year 2003-04 copy of which is available on pages 180 and 181 of paper book, it is seen that it has been noted by Assessing Officer in this assessment order that company has sold property bearing No. 167, Golf Links, New Delhi, for Rs. 225 lakhs and sale consideration is claimed to have been received by cheque of Rs. 155 lakhs and cash Rs. 100 lakhs. It is further noted by Assessing Officer that assessee has shown computation of capital gain which has been shown at Rs. 203.16 lakhs and same is accepted. which has been shown at Rs. 203.16 lakhs and same is accepted. undisputed position is that assessee was shown that cash of Rs. 100 lakhs was received by it from its own company, M/s. Regal Flats Pvt. Ltd., and that company was shown cash receipt of Rs. 100 lakhs on account of sale of property and has declared long-term capital gains on basis of sale proceeds of Rs. 255 lakhs which has been accepted by Assessing Officer of that company and, hence, it has to be accepted that this much cash was received by that company although Shri Khosla who is buyer of that property is denying about any payment in cash to assessee or to that company. It is to be noted that when person has made payment out of his unaccounted cash, he will not accept it and, hence, denial by Shri Khosla that he has not made any cash for purchase of property in question cannot be accepted as gospel truth. Now, question is whether that money received by M/s. Regal Flats Pvt. Ltd. was used by assessee for making this payment of Rs. 107 lakhs for purchase of property. As per regular cash book of that company, i.e., M/s. Regal Flats Pvt. Ltd. which was impounded by Department in course of survey on May 13, 2003, entries are appearing in cash book of that company with effect to receipt of cash from sale of property and transferring of cash to assessee under imprest. Since this cash book of M/s. Regal Flats Pvt. Ltd. was impounded by Department on same date, this allegation of Department cannot be accepted that entry in regular cash book of M/s. Regal Flats Pvt. Ltd. is after thought. One more objection of Department is that there is no posting in ledger of that company with regard to this cash transaction. It is bit unusual but simply on basis of this fact alone that these cash transactions were not posted in ledger accounts, it cannot be accepted that these transactions have not taken place and entries in cash book are after thought because cash book is regular cash book of that company and same was impounded in course of survey on same date when search was carried out by assessee. Regarding this objection of learned Departmental representative of Revenue that there was no entry in ledger of company it was explained by learned authorised representative that since cash was shown in balance-sheet in company as imprest lying with director of company, entry was not posted in ledger by accountant because he was not aware as to whether same is to be posted in running account of assessee in books of that company or to separate account. Considering all these facts, we do not find any reason to interfere in order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on this aspect to extent of Rs. 98 lakhs." In course of hearing, it was sought to be highlighted that these findings are contrary to statements of purchaser of Golf Links property-Arjun Khosla. It was submitted that statement had to be accepted since it was made by third party unconnected with assessee. We are of opinion that given fact-intensive nature of matter, and-as noted by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-the rare instance where cash transactions were indeed reflected in books of one of assessees which had intimate connection with present assessee, any further enquiry would involve more weighing of evidence rather than interpretation of law. Barring exceptional cases where findings are based on no evidence or after overlooking material evidence, scope of appeal under section 260A of Act involves examination of substantial questions of law. We see none in respect of this transaction. In respect of second question sought to be raised, it is noteworthy that block assessment resulted in addition of Rs. 44,47,500. amounts were based upon seizure of handwritten notes containing particulars of demands made by assessee. This was comprised four amounts, i.e., Rs. 30,85,500 advanced to some persons; Rs. 1.69 lakhs towards payment of air tickets; loan amount of Rs. 5 lakhs and payment of Rs. 6.93 lakhs by assessee. assessee's explanation here was that during course of his business dealings in property and during discussions, parties used to write rough figures and amounts on piece of paper relating to estimates for some further dealings. These notings may or may not have materialised in any business. assessee, therefore, submitted that no further explanation could be given since notings were made long ago. Assessing Officer was not satisfied with explanation and added Rs. 39,47,500 as unexplained expenditure and Rs. 5 lakhs under section 69A as unexplained loan given by assessee. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) confirmed addition of Rs. 28,96,000 and deleted balance and also deleted sum of Rs. 5 lakhs under section 69A. Both assessee and Revenue appealed against decision of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). assessee, in course of hearing before Income-tax Appellate Tribunal relied upon documents, one of which clearly stated that figure mentioned was estimate. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal noted that in some instance, word, "paid" and in some cases, word "estimate" and "short receipt" had been recorded. In one case, explanation for sum of Rs. 5 lakhs existed but was not legible and yet in another case, noting was "difference paid excess to". As against these, for sum of Rs. 6.93 lakhs, noting was "settled on July 8, 1998". Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, therefore, observed that there was no clarity whether these were payments or receipts by assessee. It also noted that in absence of dates mentioned in concerned pages of seized notes and in view of note "old account" at end of calculation, no addition could be made during course of block assessment since no particular amount was attributable for specified year. It, however, noted that in respect of sum of Rs. 6.93 lakhs, clear date, i.e., July 8, 1998, was attributable. addition of this amount was, therefore, affirmed and balance from Rs. 44,47,500 originally made by Assessing Officer was deleted. Here again, like in regard to first question, matter is entirely factual. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) subjected record to close scrutiny and Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, thereafter, went into record by examining actual entries. It is not as if Income-tax Appellate Tribunal deleted entire amount. rationale for retaining Rs. 6.93 lakhs has been clearly mentioned, i.e., that it pertained to specific transaction for which date was attributable or discernible. However, with respect to other notings, no definitive date or period could be ascribed. Therefore, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal concluded that said amount of Rs. 44,47,500 could not be brought to tax. We hold that there is no infirmity in these findings as to require court to frame substantial questions of law for purposes of entertaining this appeal. In view of above conclusions, there is no merit in appeals which are consequently dismissed. *** Commissioner of Income-tax v. Tilak Raj Anand