Pure questions of fact barred reference where cash credits and hypothecated stock additions lacked supporting evidence.

Deletion of the cash-credit addition was upheld because the Tribunal found, on the record, that the entries represented advances later adjusted through supply of goods under invoices. The addition relating to alleged undeclared stocks hypothecated to the bank also failed because the Tribunal accepted the assessee's explanation that the overdraft was backed by hypothecated stock, found no evidence of stock undervaluation, and noted that the revenue produced no material to support a higher-value hypothecation theory. In the absence of evidence to displace these factual findings, the proposed questions were treated as pure questions of fact and no referable question of law arose.

---

---

Issues: Whether the proposed questions arising from deletion of cash credits and an addition made on account of alleged undeclared stocks hypothecated to a bank disclosed any referable question of law, or were merely findings of fact.

Analysis: The Tribunal's deletion of the cash-credit addition rested on its factual finding that the entries represented advances later squared up by supply of goods under the invoices, and that it had examined the relevant orders and papers. On the second issue, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's explanation that the overdraft was against hypothecation of stocks, found no evidence that the disclosed stock was undervalued, and noted that the revenue had produced no material to support an inference of higher-value hypothecation. In the absence of evidence to displace those findings, no question of law arose for reference.

Conclusion: The proposed questions were held to be pure questions of fact and no referable question of law was made out.

---