Concurrent findings of no suppression in accounts barred revisional interference against the assessee.

Concurrent factual findings showed that the disputed turnovers had already been disclosed before inspection and that the alleged slips were recorded in the books. The appellate authorities accepted the assessee's explanation and found no established suppression of purchases or sales. On those facts, the revisional court held that no legal infirmity arose for interference, because the matter turned on concurrent findings of fact rather than any question of law. The question of law was therefore answered against the Revenue, and the revision was held not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was correct in upholding the finding that there was no suppression or omission in the assessee's accounts and that no question of law arose for interference in revision.

Analysis: The appellate authorities had concurrently found that the disputed turnovers had already been disclosed before the inspection and that the alleged slips were accounted for in the books. On the records, the finding was that the authorities below had accepted the assessee's explanation and had not established any purchase or sales suppression. In view of these concurrent factual findings, the revisional court found no legal infirmity warranting interference.

Conclusion: The question of law was answered against the Revenue, and the revision was not maintainable on the concurrent findings recorded below.

---