High Court affirms Tribunal on restoration, profit estimation; petition dismissed, parties bear costs.

The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision not to refer questions regarding the restoration of two amounts, finding no legal question arising from the creditors' voluntary disclosures. The Court supported the Tribunal's conclusion on the item of Rs. 15,430, accepting the profit estimation based on shortages in raw material and finished products. The petition was dismissed, denying the mandamus sought and leaving parties to bear their own costs.

---

---

Issues:
- Refusal of Tribunal to refer questions of law regarding restoration of two amounts
- Justification of Tribunal's decision on restoration of amounts
- Dispute over the item of Rs. 15,430 and calculation of profit

Analysis:
The High Court judgment pertains to a petition filed under the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking direction for the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer certain questions of law. The case involves the assessment year 1966-67, where discrepancies were found in the petitioner's stock values. The petitioner explained the excess amount by stating it was received from creditors outside their books of account. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) partially accepted this explanation, leading to an assessment of the petitioner's income. The petitioner appealed this decision, resulting in the Appellate Authority Commissioner (AAC) accepting some contentions and reducing the total income. However, the Revenue appealed to the Tribunal, which partially accepted the appeal and restored the inclusion of two amounts, along with directing interest charges under the Act.

The primary issue addressed by the High Court was the Tribunal's refusal to refer questions regarding the restoration of the two amounts. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the creditors' voluntary disclosures did not sufficiently explain the missing credits. The Court found no fault in the Tribunal's findings, emphasizing the lack of a link between the disclosed amounts and the unexplained stock investments. As such, the Court deemed this a pure finding of fact, justifying the Tribunal's decision not to refer the matter as no legal question arose.

Regarding the item of Rs. 15,430, the Court noted a shortage in raw material and finished products, leading to an inference that the shortage was sold for profit. Despite the petitioner's argument against the profit estimation, the Court supported the Tribunal's calculations and conclusion, deeming it a factual matter without the need for a legal reference. The Court dismissed the petition, declining the mandamus sought, and left the parties to bear their own costs, concluding the judgment.

---