Section 260A limits interference to substantial questions of law; concurrent findings on explained gift-based cash deposits were upheld.

Section 260A appellate jurisdiction is confined to substantial questions of law, and the High Court will not reappreciate evidence or disturb concurrent factual findings absent legal error. Here, the first appellate authority and the Tribunal concurrently found that the cash deposits were explained as gifts from the assessee's mother and husband, whose financial capacity was accepted on the record. As no legal infirmity or factual perversity was shown, no substantial question of law arose and the appeal was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 raised any substantial question of law warranting interference with the concurrent factual findings that the cash deposits were explained as gifts received by the assessee.

Analysis: The appellate jurisdiction under Section 260A is confined to substantial questions of law. The findings of the first appellate authority and the Tribunal were concurrent on facts that the assessee's mother and husband had sufficient funds to make the gifts, and that the deposits were explained. The materials on record did not disclose any legal error in those findings, nor any factual infirmity that would justify interference. In a Section 260A appeal, the High Court does not reappreciate evidence or sit in appeal over concurrent findings of fact unless a substantial question of law arises.

Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose. The appeal was not entertainable and stood dismissed, in favour of the assessee.

---