IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
 . 
 . 
         ITA 789/2010  
 . 
 . 
 JANARDHAN VERMA                            ..... Appellant 
 Through: Mr. Bharat Beriwal, Advocate. 
 . 
 versus 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER 
 OF INCOME TAX                                          ..... Respondent 
 Through: Ms. Suruchii Aggarwal, Advocate. 
 . 
 . 
 CORAM: 
 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN 
 . 
 . 
 O R D E R 
                        05.07.2010 
 CM 11422-11423/2010 (exemption) 
 Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 
 ITA 789/2010 
 . 
 Present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has been 
 filed challenging the order dated 30th October, 2009 passed by the Income Tax 
 Appellate Tribunal (in short ?Tribunal) relating to block assessment period 01st 
 April, 1995 to 04th March, 2002. 
 ITA 789/2010                                                               page 
 1 of 4. 
 . 
 Briefly stated the facts of the present case are that on 04th March, 2002, 
 a search and seizure operation was conducted at the appellant and his son?s 
 . 
 . 
 premises. Jewellery weighing 1737.5 gms valued at Rs.7,81,875/- was found during 
 the search and seizure operation. 
 Mr. Bharat Beriwal, learned counsel for appellant contended that the 
 Tribunal committed a grave error in reversing the findings of the Commissioner, 
 Income Tax without giving any reason especially 
 when the Tribunal had only considered 15 slips while 41 slips had been found and 
 serially numbered during the search and seizure operation. 
 The Tribunal in its impugned order has held that though the Commissioner 
 had not accepted the appellant?s additional evidence, yet it had accepted 
 appellant?s submission that 41 persons had pledged jewellery with the appellant. 
 The Tribunal has further found upon perusal of the evidence that no documentary 
 proof was found at the time of search to show pledging of jewellery by 41 
 persons.  The Tribunal has further opined that the statement given by 4 persons 
 in favour of the appellant is not supported by any evidence.  Moreover, 
 . 
 ITA 789/2010                                                               page 
 2 of 4. 
 . 
 the affidavits of the persons who had supported the appellant?s version 
 were prepared in December, 2002 and March, 2004 and yet the same 
 had not been filed before the Assessing Officer. 
 The Tribunal has also held that  the appellant?s  contention  that 
 some of the slips were not seized by the search party was not substantiated by 
 evidence. 
 Keeping in view the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, we are of the opinion 
 that the Tribunal has given cogent reasons for its conclusion and that the 
 appellant has, in the present proceedings essentially challenged findings of 
 fact.  The Supreme Court and this Court have repeatedly held that a question of 
 fact becomes a question of law, if the finding is either without any evidence or 
 material, or if the finding is contrary to the evidence, or is perverse or there 
 is no direct nexus between conclusion of fact and the primary fact upon which 
 that conclusion is based.  But, it is not possible to turn a mere question of 
 fact into question of law by seeking whether as a matter of law the authority 
 came to a correct conclusion upon a matter of fact.  Consequently, no 
 substantial question of law arises in the present proceedings.  Accordingly, the 
 present appeal and pending application 
 ITA 789/2010                                                               page 
 3 of 4. 
 . 
 being devoid of merits are dismissed but with no orders as to costs. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 MANMOHAN, J 
 . 
 . 
 CHIEF JUSTICE 
 . 
 JULY  05, 2010 
 . 
 . 
 js 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 ITA 789/2010                                                        page 4 of 4. 
 . 
 1 
 $