Concurrent findings of fact cannot be reopened in reference jurisdiction absent perversity or legal error.

Concurrent factual findings that educational institutions were genuine and not benamidars could not be reopened in reference jurisdiction under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The High Court held that such jurisdiction is confined to cases where refusal to state a case is legally unsustainable; pure findings of fact, especially concurrent findings by the appellate authority and the Tribunal, are not interfered with unless perverse, based on no evidence, or founded on irrelevant material. As the genuineness of the firms was essentially factual and no referable question of law arose, the reference applications were rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether, on the concurrent findings that the educational institutions were genuine and not benamidars, any referable question of law arose so as to justify exercise of jurisdiction under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The scope of jurisdiction under section 256(2) is limited to cases where the Tribunal's refusal to state a case is unsustainable on a question of law. Pure findings of fact, especially those reached concurrently by the first appellate authority and the Tribunal, are not open to interference unless shown to be perverse, based on no evidence, based on irrelevant material, or otherwise legally unsound. The Court found that the material circumstances were considered cumulatively by the appellate authorities and that the genuineness of the firms was essentially a factual determination.

Conclusion: No question of law arose. The applications for calling for reference were not maintainable and were rejected.

Final Conclusion: Concurrent factual findings on genuineness of the firms and absence of benami ownership could not be reopened in reference jurisdiction under section 256(2).

Ratio Decidendi: Concurrent findings of fact by the appellate authorities are final in reference jurisdiction unless shown to be perverse, based on irrelevant material, or unsupported by evidence; mere reassessment of evidence does not give rise to a question of law.

---