Tribunal may decide remaining undecided issues on rehearing, while factual findings on concealment do not create a question of law.

After a High Court answers the legal question, the Tribunal may rehear and decide any remaining undecided grounds on merits when disposing of the appeal in conformity with that judgment. The Tribunal's finding that the assessee had not carried on benami business and had not concealed income was based on appreciation of evidence and surrounding circumstances, making it a pure finding of fact. As no perversity or legal infirmity was shown, no referable question of law arose under section 256(2). The request for a reference was therefore declined and the rule discharged.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, after the High Court's answer on the legal question, the Tribunal could rehear the appeal on the remaining undecided grounds and determine concealment on merits. (ii) Whether the Tribunal's finding that the assessee had not carried on benami business and had not concealed income gave rise to any referable question of law under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue (i): Whether, after the High Court's answer on the legal question, the Tribunal could rehear the appeal on the remaining undecided grounds and determine concealment on merits.

Analysis: The Tribunal, on receiving the High Court's judgment, was required to dispose of the appeal conformably to that judgment. Where an earlier order had left issues undecided, the Tribunal retained jurisdiction to hear and decide those issues on merits. The rehearing was not confined to the single question answered by the High Court, and the Tribunal was entitled to consider the remaining grounds that had not been adjudicated earlier.

Conclusion: The Tribunal was competent to decide the remaining issues on merits.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal's finding that the assessee had not carried on benami business and had not concealed income gave rise to any referable question of law under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The finding that the assessee had not concealed income was based on appraisal of evidence and surrounding circumstances. The Tribunal considered the relevant materials, found no cogent evidence of benami holdings, and rejected the revenue's case on concealment. Such a determination was a pure finding of fact, and no material was shown to render it perverse or to convert it into a question of law. The court was not required at the reference stage to decide the correctness of that factual conclusion on the merits.

Conclusion: No referable question of law arose from the Tribunal's finding on concealment and benami business.

Final Conclusion: The application for reference was declined, and the rule was discharged because the proposed questions did not justify a direction to state a case.

Ratio Decidendi: On rehearing after a High Court's answer on a point of law, the Tribunal may decide any remaining undecided issues on merits, and a fact-based finding on concealment or benami business does not become a question of law unless it is shown to be perverse or unsupported by evidence.

---