NASIM SIKANDAR, J.---The assessee in this appeal filed under section 136 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 is a private limited company, which at the relevant time derived income from sale of yarn on commission basis: The Assessing Officer while making assessments resorted to make a disallowance of Rs.3,79,200 under the head of discount. The first appellate authority deleted the same together on the basis of the history of the case while the Tribunal on the Departmental Appeal concluded that the total deletion of addition under the head of discount was unjustified. On the basis of the fact that part of the claim was unverifiable due to lack of documentary evidence they proceeded to fix the amount of disallowance/addition under the head discount at Rs.1,57,000.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant by relying upon a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in re: Hindustan Electro Graphites Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1988) 171 ITR 165 contends that a substantial question of law in the given facts has arisen. However, we are not persuaded to agree. Mere fact that the disallowance of the kind stood test of the appellate forums during the earlier years does not mean that a particular claim had to be accepted without putting it to the test of admissibility as well as verifiability in the year of claim. To the extent of admissibility the claim of similar allowance during the previous years does contain an element of strength. However, the verifiability of claim has to be made every year and no assessee can claim exemption merely on the basis of history of the case.
3. In the case in hand the learned Tribunal recorded findings of fact that the total claim under the head discount was not verifiable and, therefore, they proceeded to allow only part of it. These findings of fact are not challenged before us. Therefore, in the given circumstances no question of law can be said to have arisen out of the order of the Tribunal.
4. Since the findings of fact as recorded by the Tribunal are not disputed nor a claim of total verifiability of expense under the head of discount has been put forth before us, the order of the Tribunal, cannot be said to have been made without any material on record. Therefore, the case relied upon by the learned counsel is clearly distinguishable.
6. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed in limine. .