https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12306 Investment placed in the wife's name was treated as the assessee's unexplained income because the evidence showed no independent source of funds for the wife, her explanation for the purchase was unproved, and the alleged support from her brother was not credible. The High Court treated that conclusion as a pure finding of fact drawn from appreciation of evidence and probabilities. It also stated that no substantial question of law arose under section 260A because the dispute did not involve a debatable legal issue, but only the factual inference that the purchase consideration had been provided by the assessee. en-us Wed, 31 Jul 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 21 Feb 2010 11:49:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12306 Investment placed in the wife's name was treated as the assessee's unexplained income because the evidence showed no independent source of funds for the wife, her explanation for the purchase was unproved, and the alleged support from her brother was not credible. The High Court treated that conclusion as a pure finding of fact drawn from appreciation of evidence and probabilities. It also stated that no substantial question of law arose under section 260A because the dispute did not involve a debatable legal issue, but only the factual inference that the purchase consideration had been provided by the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 31 Jul 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12306