Estimated income from diverted family funds sustained where concurrent findings on HUF property and alleged loan were unchallenged as perverse.

The Tribunal's addition based on estimated income from diverted funds was sustained because the court treated the Tribunal's concurrent factual findings as primary facts: there was no total or partial partition of the Hindu undivided family, the amount remained family property, and the alleged loan to coparceners was not proved by any agreement or interest stipulation. In a reference under section 256(2), the court declined to reappreciate evidence in the absence of any plea that those findings were perverse, and the issue was answered in favour of the Revenue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in confirming the addition made on account of estimated income on diverted funds.

Analysis: The Tribunal recorded concurrent factual findings that there was no total or partial partition of the Hindu undivided family, that the sum of Rs. 90,000 remained the property of the family, and that the alleged advance to the coparceners as a loan was not proved by any agreement or stipulation for interest. Those findings were treated as primary facts. In a reference under section 256(2), the court declined to reappreciate the evidence in the absence of any challenge that the findings were perverse.

Conclusion: The question was answered in the affirmative, sustaining the addition and deciding the issue in favour of the Revenue.

---