NASIM SIKANDAR, J.--In this further appeal under section 136 of the late Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 the Commissioner of Income Tax Zone-B, Lahore claims that following question of law arises out of the impugned order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lahore Bench, Lahore dated 21-10- 1998:-- `Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (Appeals) Zone-V, Lahore was justified to delete the additions made by the Assessing Authority under section 13(1)(aa) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 and further the learned ITAT was justified to confirm the same by dismissing the Departmental Appeal."
2. The respondent/assessee is a registered firm and during the relevant period derived income from catering business. As against the declared income of Rs,80,000 for the year, 1991-92 an assessm ent was framed at total income of Rs,9,44,794 which; inter alia included an addition of Rs,3,22,245 made, under section 13(1)(aa) of the late Ordinance.
3. On appeal learned First Appellate Authority i,e, CIT (Appeals) Lahore deleted the aforesaid addition made. on account of unexplained investment. On departmental appeal a Division Bench of the Tribunal, however, allowed partial relief inasmuch as the deletion of addition to the extent of Rs,1,25,400 claimed as credit was maintained on account of absence of an explanation put forth before the authorities below by the assessee. Rest of the deletion was maintained. Hence this. further appeal.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner we are not inclined to entertain this appeal.
The issue if part of the addition made under section 13(1)(aa) on account of unexplained investment was supported from the material on record and the rest of it was not hardly gives rise to a question of law to be considered by this' Court. The learned Tribunal found that the first appellate forum deleted the entire addition on the basis of general observations. In their view the learned CIT (Appeals) did not consider the credit of Rs,1,25,400 nor any explanation was offered to him. Therefore, to that extent the departmental appeal was accepted and the addition was restored under the said provisions of the Ordinance. From these findings no question of law can be said to have arisen unless it can be established that either these observations were not supported from the record or else the Tribunal reached a conclusion which was against the record. None of the two situations being present in the case, we will refuse to entertain the question.
5. Dismissed in limine.