was received. It also referred to the return initially filed and later on revised by the Assessee. The receipt was undisputed. The relation was also undisputed. That it was received by cheque is also not disputed. That the relationship with the Proprietor of M/s. Vinay Exports was also not in dispute. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the gift was received from the brother-in-law and even the brother-in-law has explained the source from which it came to him. The bank account of the brother-inlaw has been referred and with the entries therein. From that the Tribunal comes to a conclusion that the sum was paid by a company to another company and this brother-in-law received it from that other company M/s. Cenzer Industries. Thus, the claim was genuine. The occasion for the gift was not something by which the addition could have been deleted. In such circumstances, the case as placed by the Assessee in the revised return having been concurrently accepted and after scrutiny or a verification of the relevant material that we are of the opinion that the finding of fact concurrently rendered could not be termed as perverse. It is also not vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of the record. The Appeal is devoid of merits and it is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
