One business or separate businesses: factual findings on share dealings and sewing-machine trading defeated any reference question.

Whether share dealings and a sewing-machine business formed one continuing business depended on the Tribunal's factual finding that the assessee's memorandum authorised both activities and that share transactions had been carried on since incorporation. That finding was supported by the record, so the characterisation of the activities as one business, rather than separate businesses, did not itself raise a question of law for reference under section 66(2). The further request to frame an additional question was also rejected because it had not been raised before the Tribunal and, in any event, the record supported the Tribunal's view. No referable question of law arose, and the refusal to direct a reference was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's finding that the assessee's share transactions and its sewing-machine business formed the same business gave rise to a question of law requiring reference under section 66(2), and whether the loss on sale of shares could be carried forward and set off under section 24(2).

Analysis: The assessee's memorandum permitted dealings in shares as well as in sewing machines and accessories, and the record showed that it had engaged in share dealings since its incorporation. The Tribunal's conclusion that the share transactions were not a separate business but part of the assessee's continuing business was supported by the facts and represented a finding on the character of the business carried on. The Court held that whether two activities constitute separate businesses or branches of one business is essentially a finding of fact and does not, by itself, raise a question of law. The further request to frame an additional question was rejected because it had not been agitated before the Tribunal and, in any event, the record supported the Tribunal's conclusion.

Conclusion: No referable question of law arose; the assessee's loss on sale of shares was treated as part of the same business, and the refusal to direct a reference was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: The determination whether two sets of activities constitute one business or separate businesses is ordinarily a finding of fact, and where the Tribunal's finding is supported by material on record, no question of law arises for reference under section 66(2).

---