Tribunal factual findings on profit-making ventures and taxable receipts were sustained in income-tax reference proceedings.

A Tribunal finding based on relevant material and reasonable appreciation of surrounding circumstances, particularly on whether transactions were profit-making ventures or business dealings, is not to be disturbed in reference jurisdiction merely because another view is possible. On the facts discussed, the surplus on sale of gold was treated as taxable income, the rent from houses forming part of impartible property was assessable in the assessee's hands, and the profit on sale of Karanpura shares was also held taxable. The assessments were sustained because the evidence supported the Revenue's case and no interference with the factual findings was warranted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the surplus realised on the sale of gold was taxable as income, profits and gains of the assessee for the relevant assessment years; (ii) whether the rent from houses forming part of the impartible property was assessable in the hands of the assessee; (iii) whether the profit realised on the sale of Karanpura shares was liable to be taxed in the assessee's hands.

Issue (i): Whether the surplus realised on the sale of gold was taxable as income, profits and gains of the assessee for the relevant assessment years.

Analysis: The explanation that the gold had been purchased as a safe form of keeping liquid assets was not accepted. The surrounding circumstances, including the assessee's conduct, the timing of the sales, the tendency of gold prices to fall, the use of sale proceeds in other transactions, and the Tribunal's consideration of the alleged pressing necessities, supported the conclusion that the gold was dealt with as part of a profit-making scheme rather than as a mere protective investment. The finding was one of fact and was supported by material on record.

Conclusion: The surplus on the sale of gold was taxable and the issue was answered in the affirmative in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the rent from houses forming part of the impartible property was assessable in the hands of the assessee.

Analysis: The income-tax authorities treated the house rent as taxable, the Appellate Tribunal affirmed that view, and no substantial argument was advanced to dislodge that conclusion. There was no basis shown for interfering with the assessment of the house rent in the assessee's hands.

Conclusion: The house rent was assessable in the hands of the assessee and the issue was answered in the affirmative in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (iii): Whether the profit realised on the sale of Karanpura shares was liable to be taxed in the assessee's hands.

Analysis: The Tribunal found, on the material before it, that the purchase of shares was not undertaken with a genuine investment purpose but in the course of a scheme connected with obtaining control and resolving disputes, and that the transactions could be treated as business-like dealings. That finding rested on appreciation of evidence, including the contemporaneous correspondence and surrounding circumstances, and could not be disturbed in reference jurisdiction absent absence of material.

Conclusion: The profit on the sale of Karanpura shares was taxable and the issue was answered in the affirmative in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: All the referred questions were decided against the assessee. The High Court declined to interfere with the Tribunal's factual findings and sustained the assessments on the disputed receipts.

Ratio Decidendi: In a reference under the Income-tax Act, a finding of the Tribunal based on relevant material and reasonable appreciation of the surrounding circumstances, especially on whether a transaction amounts to a profit-making venture or business dealing, is not open to interference merely because another view of the evidence is possible.

---