Om Prakash, J.

1. This is an application by the assessee under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for asking the Tribunal to refer the following questions:

" 1. Whether the Tribunal has any jurisdiction to correct the section in confirming the addition when the authorities below has confirmed the additions on other section

2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legally justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 37,265 without considering the initial capital of Rs. 3,000 intangible additions of Rs. 6,000 in the assessment year 1976-77 and holding that there was no saving from the assessment years 1967-68 to 1972-73

3. Whether the Tribunal is legally justified in upholding the addition of Rs. 37,265 without applying his mind on the contention that the estimate of the household expenses made by the AAC was excessive

4. Whether the Tribunal was justified in confirming the additions without controverting the contentions of the affidavit in view of the fact that in the proceedings under section 148 the burden lay upon the department to establish that a particular amount relates to the income of this year

5. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the proceedings under section 148 was legally justified"

Having heard the counsels for the parties, we are of the considered view that no question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal.

2. Shri Rajesh Agarwal, the learned counsel for the assessee, has pressed only question Nos. 2 to 4 before us. All these questions relate to one and the same controversy. The addition of Rs. 37,265 represented an unexplained investment, according to the Tribunal. The assessee was called upon to explain a deposit of Rs. 50,000 made in two instalments in the previous year relating to the assessment year 1976-77. The explanation of the assessee was that the investment was made out of the past savings of the business income that started in the year 1966. The Tribunal found that there was no saving from business up to the year 1972. For the next following years, the Tribunal estimated the household expenses of the assessee at the rate of Rs. 600 per month and the difference of the returned income and the estimated household expenses was taken to be the savings of the assessee. So the important issues are so to whether there was no saving of the assessee up to the years 1972 and whether the household expenses were rightly estimated by the Tribunal The findings on both the issues are purely findings of fact and no question of law arises from the finding of the Tribunal. The application is, therefore, dismissed with costs assessed at Rs. 125.