Court affirms Tribunal decision based on factual findings, rejects referral application, imposes costs.

The court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that it was based on findings of fact and did not raise any legal questions. The application to direct the Tribunal to refer questions to the court was rejected, with costs imposed on the assessee. The court found that the Tribunal's reliance on the unsigned stock statement and rejection of the bank certificate were justified, as the assessee failed to provide credible evidence to support their claims. The court highlighted that the burden of proof was on the assessee, which they did not discharge, leading to the affirmation of the Tribunal's decision based on reasonable inference from the evidence.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of evidence by the Tribunal.
2. Justification of the Tribunal's reliance on an unsigned stock statement and rejection of a bank certificate.
3. Tribunal's decision on stock discrepancy in light of CIT v. General Metal Works.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Rejection of Evidence by the Tribunal
The primary contention was whether the Tribunal's order was vitiated in law due to the rejection of evidence without sufficient grounds and failure to consider material on the record. The court noted that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's decision was based on findings of fact and did not give rise to any question of law. The Tribunal examined the evidence, including the affidavit and other material provided by the assessee, and concluded that the addition was justified. The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation regarding the inflated stock statements submitted to the bank was an afterthought and not substantiated by credible evidence. The court emphasized that a finding of fact does not become a question of law merely because a different view is possible.

Issue 2: Justification of the Tribunal's Reliance on an Unsigned Stock Statement and Rejection of a Bank Certificate
The Tribunal based its conclusion on a stock statement dated March 31, 1981, which was not signed by the assessee, and rejected a bank certificate dated December 18, 1989. The assessee argued that the stock statement was inflated to secure a higher overdraft facility and that the bank certificate should have been considered. However, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had not disputed the submission of stock statements to the bank where discrepancies appeared. The Tribunal also observed that the bank certificate was produced for the first time at the appellate stage, and the assessee had ample opportunity to present it earlier. The Tribunal found that the assessee's shifting stand and the affidavit were self-serving and did not fit the facts and circumstances of the case. The court upheld the Tribunal's findings, stating that they were based on material evidence and reasonable inference.

Issue 3: Tribunal's Decision on Stock Discrepancy in Light of CIT v. General Metal Works
The assessee relied on the case of CIT v. General Metal Works to argue that the Tribunal's decision was incorrect. However, the court distinguished this case, noting that in General Metal Works, the discrepancy in stock was satisfactorily explained to the Tribunal, which is the final fact-finding authority. In the present case, the Tribunal found that the assessee failed to explain the discrepancies in the stock hypothecated with the bank and that shown in the account books. The court reiterated that the Tribunal's findings were based on material evidence and did not give rise to any question of law. The court also noted that the Tribunal had considered the returns submitted to the Rubber Board and the sales tax assessment order but found them to have no evidentiary value as there was no proof of actual verification of the stock.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the Tribunal's order was based on findings of fact and did not give rise to any question of law. The application for a direction to the Tribunal to refer the questions to the court was rejected with costs assessed at Rs. 150. The court emphasized that the burden was on the assessee to prove that the apparent tenor of the stock statement was not real, which the assessee failed to discharge. The Tribunal's decision was upheld as it was based on reasonable inference drawn from the evidence on record.

---