Factual findings on cheque dishonour and a new unraised interest plea did not create any referable question of law.

A factual finding that the assessee lacked sufficient funds on the date the cheque was dishonoured meant the penalty dispute did not raise a referable question of law. The later transfer of funds could not cure the default already committed, and concurrent findings rejecting the bank certificate and holding non-payment on presentation were based on appreciation of evidence. A fresh plea that interest was not chargeable, not raised before the Tribunal, could not be converted into a legal question at the reference stage. The result is that no referable question of law arose from the penalty order, and the interest contention was not entertainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was bound to refer questions arising from the penalty order when the core finding was that the assessee had insufficient funds on the date the cheque was dishonoured and whether a plea regarding non-chargeability of interest, not raised before the Tribunal, could give rise to a referable question of law.

Analysis: The decisive issue was factual. The cheque was dishonoured on 19 May 1992, and the assessee's funds were found insufficient on that date. The later transfer of funds on 22 May 1992 could not undo the default already committed. The authorities below had concurrently rejected the bank certificate and found a default in payment along with the return. Such a finding, resting on appreciation of evidence, did not generate a referable question of law. The plea regarding interest was not urged before the Tribunal, and a new plea not raised at that stage cannot be converted into a referable legal question.

Conclusion: No referable question of law arose from the Tribunal's order on the penalty issue, and the interest contention could not be entertained.

---