Concurrent factual findings and Rule 46A evidence accepted, no substantial question of law arose in second appeal.

Concurrent factual findings on deletion of additions and admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A were not open to interference in second appeal absent perversity or contrary material. The lower authorities found no specific show-cause notice for the disputed additions, accepted the assessee's reasonable cause for earlier non-production of evidence, and held that the share capital, share premium, unsecured loans and unexplained investment items were either carried forward from earlier years or supported by banking records, books and documentary evidence. Because the dispute turned on appreciation of evidence rather than any substantial legal issue, no substantial question of law arose and the Revenue's challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the concurrent findings of the lower authorities deleting the additions and admitting additional evidence under Rule 46A gave rise to any substantial question of law warranting interference under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The lower authorities recorded concurrent findings that the Assessing Officer had not issued a specific show cause notice in respect of the disputed additions and that the assessee had reasonable cause for not producing the evidence earlier. The appellate authorities also found that the additions relating to share capital and share premium, unsecured loans, and unexplained investments were either carried forward from earlier years or were supported by banking records, books of account, and documentary evidence. In the absence of any perversity or contrary material, those factual findings could not be interfered with in second appeal, as reappreciation of evidence is impermissible where only factual issues arise.

Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose, and the Revenue's challenge to the deletion of the additions failed.

---