Referable question of law absent where imprest account findings were factual and not shown to be perverse

The Tribunal's finding on the assessee's imprest accounts, supported by the pattern of re-depositing withdrawals, was treated as a factual conclusion based on the record. Since the Revenue failed to show that the directors had used the withdrawn amounts for another purpose or that the funds were unavailable for re-deposit, and the findings were neither perverse nor unreasonable, no referable question of law arose under section 256(2). The request for a mandamus directing a reference was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Revenue's application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 deserved a direction to the Tribunal to refer the proposed question to the High Court.

Analysis: The Tribunal's conclusion rested on examination of the assessee's imprest accounts and the consistent past and subsequent practice of re-depositing withdrawals. The recorded finding was that the Revenue had not established that the amounts withdrawn by the directors were spent for some other purpose or were unavailable for re-deposit. Those findings were based on the material on record and were not shown to be perverse or unreasonable. In that situation, no referable question of law arose from the Tribunal's order.

Conclusion: The application for mandamus to require a reference was rejected.

---