Pure findings of fact defeat reference under income-tax law where evidence supports deduction and depreciation claims.

Where the Tribunal's conclusions rest on appreciation of evidence and pure findings of fact, no referable question of law arises under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The disallowance of job charges paid to the assessee's son was sustained on evidence that he was a qualified engineer working with the assessee, so the deduction issue remained factual. The depreciation claim on machinery purchased on 31 March 1988 was also upheld because the record showed purchase, installation, commissioning, and use on the same day. The reference petition therefore failed, with both issues decided in favour of the assessee on factual grounds.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the deletion of the disallowance of job charges paid to the assessee's son gave rise to a question of law under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961; (ii) Whether the allowance of depreciation on the machinery purchased on 31 March 1988 gave rise to a question of law under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue (i): Whether the deletion of the disallowance of job charges paid to the assessee's son gave rise to a question of law under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The finding sustaining the deduction was based on evidence that the recipient was a qualified engineer who had been working with the assessee and that the payment was supported by the materials on record. The conclusion turned on appreciation of evidence and not on any legal interpretation.

Conclusion: No question of law arose on this issue, and the finding stood as a finding of fact in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the allowance of depreciation on the machinery purchased on 31 March 1988 gave rise to a question of law under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The record showed purchase, installation, commissioning, and supervision by the supplier's mechanic, including payment for installation and commissioning. The Tribunal's finding that the machine was put to use on the same day was founded on evidence, and no material showed that the machine was not commissioned on 31 March 1988.

Conclusion: No question of law arose on this issue, and the allowance of depreciation was upheld in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The reference petition failed because both questions were concluded by factual findings and did not warrant interference under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the Tribunal's conclusion rests on appreciation of evidence and records pure findings of fact, no referable question of law arises for adjudication under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

---