Unexplained cash credit as income is ordinarily a question of fact when the Tribunal's finding is evidence-based and not perverse.

The source of an unexplained cash credit and the adequacy of the assessee's explanation are ordinarily questions of fact. Where the assessee admits receipt of money, the burden lies on him to prove the source and rebut the inference that it is income. On the facts, the Tribunal found the cash credit unsatisfactorily explained and treated it as the assessee's income; that finding was supported by evidence and was not shown to be perverse. No separate question of law arose on the rejection of the explanation, the post-remand assessment, or the admission of additional evidence.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's order gave rise to any referable question of law under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 in relation to the addition of an unexplained cash credit as the assessee's income.

Analysis: The source of a cash credit and the adequacy of the assessee's explanation are ordinarily questions of fact. Where the assessee admits receipt of money, the burden lies on him to establish the source and to rebut the inference that the amount represents income. The Tribunal had before it extensive material and reached a factual conclusion that the credit of Rs. 14,02,019 was not satisfactorily explained and constituted the assessee's income. The contention that a further legal question arose, namely whether rejection of the explanation still required a separate inquiry into income, was rejected as a misstatement of the governing principle. The Court also found no basis for the alternative plea that the Tribunal acted without evidence or perversely, and held that the objections relating to the post-remand assessment and admission of additional evidence disclosed no question of law.

Conclusion: No referable question of law arose from the Tribunal's order, and the request for reference was rightly refused.

Ratio Decidendi: Whether a cash credit is the assessee's income is a question of fact to be decided on all the relevant circumstances, and a High Court will not require a reference where the Tribunal's conclusion is supported by evidence and is not perverse.

---