https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19658 Concurrent findings rejected the assessee's explanation for the deposits for lack of supporting material, and the source claim that the money came from the husband and mother was treated as a question of fact. As no cogent evidence established the stated source, the deposits were sustained as income from undisclosed sources. The High Court held that this factual determination did not give rise to a referable question of law under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the reference petition was not maintainable. en-us Mon, 26 Sep 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 07 Nov 2009 16:46:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19658 Concurrent findings rejected the assessee's explanation for the deposits for lack of supporting material, and the source claim that the money came from the husband and mother was treated as a question of fact. As no cogent evidence established the stated source, the deposits were sustained as income from undisclosed sources. The High Court held that this factual determination did not give rise to a referable question of law under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the reference petition was not maintainable. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 26 Sep 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19658