Benami inference from evidence was treated as a factual finding, leaving no question of law on Tribunal appraisal.

The Tribunal's finding that businesses stood in the names of Hindu undivided family members merely as benamidars was held to be a factual inference based on evidence. It relied on findings that the two members made no investment in the pawning business, did not actually carry it on, the account books were not theirs, the books were maintained by the same person who kept the HUF's books, and one alleged owner was a minor when the business supposedly began. On those materials, no prima facie error was shown and no question of law arose from the factual conclusions.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's finding that the businesses stood in the names of members of the Hindu undivided family only as benamidars, based on appreciation of evidence, gave rise to any question of law.

Analysis: The Tribunal had appraised the entire material and recorded factual findings that no investment in the pawning business was made by the two members, that they did not actually carry on the business, that the account books did not belong to them, that the books were maintained by the same person who kept the assessee-Hindu undivided family's books, and that one of the alleged owners was a minor when the business was said to have been started. On those findings, the inference that the two members were merely benamidars for the Hindu undivided family was a factual conclusion drawn from the evidence on record.

Conclusion: No prima facie error was shown in the Tribunal's inference, and no question of law arose from the findings of fact.

---