Perversity in factual findings requires lack of support from the record; a second view of evidence is not enough.

A factual finding based on appreciation of evidence will not be treated as perverse unless it is unreasonable or unsupported by the record, and the mere possibility of another view does not justify interference. On the facts discussed, the Tribunal's conclusion concerning seized item No. 12 and coal purchases was reached after examining the evidence, the assessee's statements, and the Inspector of Industries' verification. The challenge to perversity therefore failed, and the question was answered in the negative.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's conclusion, based on seized item No. 12 relating to purchases of coal, was perverse.

Analysis: The Tribunal had examined the evidence in detail, considered the statements made by the assessee, and relied on the verification made by the Inspector of Industries. The finding under challenge was based on appreciation of evidence and factual inference. A finding is not perverse merely because another view on the evidence is possible.

Conclusion: The finding of perversity was not made out and the question was answered in the negative.

Ratio Decidendi: A factual finding based on appreciation of evidence is not perverse unless it is unreasonable or unsupported by the material on record, and the possibility of another view does not justify interference.

---