Unexplained cash credits and burden of proof on the assessee did not raise any referable question of law.

Concurrent findings that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of two cash credits and did not produce the alleged creditors meant the additions for unexplained cash credits stood on factual appreciation. The Court held that the challenge to reliance on one creditor's statement did not raise a referable question of law, because the Assessing Officer, Commissioner (Appeals), and Tribunal had all reached the same conclusion on facts. No referable question of law arose, and the reference application was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether any referable question of law arose from the Tribunal's order upholding the addition of unexplained cash credits and refusing relief to the assessee.

Analysis: The credits in the names of the two persons were treated as not proved because the assessee failed to produce them and failed to discharge the onus of establishing the genuineness of the deposits. The concurrent findings of the Assessing Officer, the Commissioner (Appeals), and the Tribunal were based on appreciation of facts, and the grievance about reliance on the statement of one creditor did not give rise to a question of law.

Conclusion: No referable question of law arose. The reference application was liable to be rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Concurrent findings that cash credits are unexplained and that the assessee failed to discharge the burden of proof do not, by themselves, give rise to a referable question of law under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

---