No referable question of law arose where the Tribunal's depositors finding rested on evidence and factual appraisal.

Questions already granted relief by the Tribunal did not survive for reference, so no further consideration was required on those points. The Tribunal's finding that the alleged depositors lacked the means to make the deposits was based on evidence, including cross-examination and the statements read as a whole; assessment of credibility and the inferences drawn were factual matters, not questions of law. As the finding was supported by intrinsic evidence and not shown to be perverse, no referable question of law arose and no direction for reference under section 256(2) was warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal should be directed under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to refer questions Nos. 1 to 6 as questions of law arising from its appellate order, and whether questions Nos. 7 and 8 survived for consideration.

Analysis: Questions Nos. 7 and 8 had already been granted relief by the Tribunal and therefore did not survive. As to questions Nos. 1 to 6, the Tribunal's conclusion that the alleged depositors had no means to make the deposits was based on the evidence, including cross-examination and the statements read as a whole. The alleged absence of rebuttal did not convert the finding into a question of law, because the credibility of witnesses and the inference drawn from their statements were matters of factual appraisal. The finding was treated as one of fact supported by intrinsic evidence and not shown to be perverse.

Conclusion: No referable question of law arose from questions Nos. 1 to 6, and no direction for reference under section 256(2) was warranted.

---